Biology and Eco-Friendly Management of Pulse Beetle (Callosobruchus Chinensis L.) On Field Pea (Pisum Sativum L.) in Storage, by Omarzai, S.a.-Converted-Compressed

BIOLOGY AND ECO-FRIENDLY MANAGEMENT OF PULSE
BEETLE (Callosobruchus chinensis L.)ON FIELD PEA (Pisum sativum

L.) IN STORAGE
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

BIRSA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
RANCHI (JHARKHAND)
By
Shir Ali Omarzai
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN
AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY
Regd. No. AP/BAU/5122/2017

2019
Affectionately Dedicated
To
My Beloved Parents
My Lovely Family Members

AND
All My Respected Teachers
“Whose perpetual affection and blessings

always inspiring me for higher ambition in life”
…OMARZAI, S. A.
.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to thanks almighty Allah, who empowered me to
achieved such dignity.
It is an excellent opportunity for me to express my deepest sense of gratitude and
sincere indebtedness to my reverend advisor, Dr. M.K. Chakravarty, Sr. Scientist- cum-
Assoc. Professor, Department of Agricultural Entomology, Birsa Agricultural
University, Ranchi, for their untiring supervision and helped in preparation of this
manuscript.
I like to convey my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Binay Kumar, Jr. Scientist-
cum- Asstt. Professor, Department of Agricultural Entomology, Birsa Agricultural
University, Ranchi, for their valuable advice and suggestions as a member of advisory
committee regarding my experimental work.
I am also grateful to Dr. Mrs. Savita Ekka, Jr. Scientist- cum- Asstt. Professor,
department of Plant Pathology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, for their help
and sincere guidance as advisory committee member during the entire course of my
research work.
I would like to extend sincere thanks to Dr. Manigopa Chakraborty, Chief
Scientist- cum- Univ. Professor, Department of Statistics, Birsa Agricultural
University, Ranchi, for their time to time help as advisory committee member during my
experimental work.
I must convey my deepest thanks to Dr. Rabindra Prasad, Sr. Scientist- cum-
Assoc. Professor, Department of Agricultural Entomology, Birsa Agricultural
University, Ranchi, for their sincerely teaching, friendly co-operation and constant help
during my seminars work.
I would like to express my sincere and thanks to Dr. P. K. Singh, Chief
Scientist- cum- Univ. Professor and the Chairman, Department of Agricultural
Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, for providing me all the necessary
facilities during the entire course of my research work.
I am deeply indebted with the sense of gratitude for guidance of Dr. (Mrs.)
Kumud Singh, University Prof -cum-Chief Scientist, Department of Entomology, Birsa
Agricultural University, Ranchi.
Iam thanks with, Dr. Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Jr. scientist cum Assistant
Professor and Mr. Ingle Dipak Shamrao, Jr. scientist cum Assistant Professor,
Agriculture College, Garhwa, B.A.U. for their ever remembering co-operation, cordial
dealing and immense help during the study period.
I am highly obliged to Dr. P. Kaushal, Hon’ble Vice-chancellor, Birsa
Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi and Dr. J. Oraon, Dean Post Graduate
Studies-Cum D.R.I. for providing me with all the necessary facilities during the course
of study.
I am also thankful to ICAR for giving me the opportunity for post graduate
studies through India – Afghanistan Fellowship Programme.
I am feeling to express my thanks to Dr. M. S. Yadav, the Dean, Faculty of
Agriculture, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi and Dr. Z.A. Haidar, the chairman,
department of plant breeding and genetics, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, for
their helps during the entire my Master degree period.
I would like to thanks to Dr. D. Prasad, retired chairman, Department of Agril.
Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, for their help during my two years
master degree programme.
I am also thankful to Dr. C.S. Mahto, Jr. Scientist- cum- Assistant Professor,
Department of plant breeding and genetics, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, for
helping in analyzing the data.
I gratefully acknowledge the helps received from all respected teachers and non-
teaching staff of Agricultural Entomology Department and other Departments of Birsa
ABSTRACT
Callosobruchus chinensis L. is a major stored grains pest of pulses in India that

infests pulses in the fields also. An experiment has been conducted on two varieties
(HUDP 15 and DDR 23) of field pea in the department of Entomology, Birsa
Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi (Jharkhand). The objectives of the study were to
study the biology of pulse beetle in field peas and to study the management of pulse
beetle applying of edible and non-edible oils.
The biology of pulse beetle was investigated during July to November, 2018
whereas management studies were conducted during December, 2018 to January, 2019.
The average fecundity was maximum (73.20 eggs) on HUDP 15 variety and it
was minimum (69.26 eggs) on DDR 23 variety of field peas. Maximum 67.10 per cent
average eggs were hatched on HUDP 15 variety but it was as minimum 51.55 per cent on
DDR 23 variety. The average range of larval + pupal period and adult longevity on
HUDP 15 variety were from 19.66 to 33 and 7.5 to 10.66 days and from 20.66 to 36 and
6 to 9 days on DDR 23 variety of field pea. The average of damages that caused by pulse
beetle during three generations on HUDP 15 variety was 50.63 per cent and it was 30.92
per cent on DDR 15 variety respectively.
The grain protectants used in the study indicated that, all the seven oils/treatments
viz. soybean, sunflower, mustard, coconut, karanj, castor and neem used @ 2ml, 3ml and
5ml/kg seed significantly reduced the number of emerged adults and extent of damaged
after 45 days of treatment. The adult mortality of soybean, sunflower, mustard, coconut,
karanj, castor and neem used @ 2ml/ kg seed was recorded from 33.30 to 89.99 per cent
after 240 hours of treatment on both HUDP 15 and DDR 23 varieties. The adult mortality
of soybean, sunflower, mustard, coconut, karanj, castor and neem used @ 3ml/ kg seed
was recorded from 39.96 to 93.28 per cent after 240 hours of treatment on both HUDP 15
and DDR 23 varieties. The adult mortality of soybean, sunflower, mustard, coconut,
karanj, castor and neem used @ 5ml/ kg seed was recorded from 63.28 to 96.62 per cent
after 240 hours of treatment on both HUDP 15 and DDR 23 varieties respectively.
CONTENST
CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE No.
1 INTRODUCTION 1–5
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6 – 23
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 24 – 28

Biological studies of pulse beetle on field pea in storage
3.1 24
conditions
3.1.1 Collection of field pea seeds 25
3.1.2 Source and Collecting of test insect 25 – 26
3.1.3 Rearing and maintenance of the culture of test insect 26
3.1.4 Materials 26
3.1.5 Seed damage by pulse beetle 26
3.1.6 Weight loss of field pea seeds by pulse beetle 27
Some other formula which used for calculation of
3.1.7 27
observations
Management trails of pulse beetle on field pea in storage
3.2. 27
conditions by applying of edible and non-edible oils
3.2.1 Technical Program 28
3.2.2 Seed treatment 29
3.2.3 Effect of oils on adult mortality 29
4 RESULTS AND DICUSSIONS 30 – 81
4.1 Experimental finding of Biological studies of pulse beetle 30 – 47
4.1.1 Fecundity/Oviposition of pulse beetle 32 – 33
4.1.2 Larval + pupal period and adult longevity of pulse beetle 33– 39
4.1.3 Eggs hatchability 40 – 41
4.1.4 Infestation of field pea by pulse beetle 41 – 47
Management trials of pulse beetle using edible and non-
4.2 48 – 82
edible oils on field pea in storage conditions
4.2.1 Rearing of the test insect 48
4.2.2 Preparation of test plant materials 48
4.2.3 Preparation of test seed 49
4.2.4 Execution of the experiment 49
4.2.5 Counting per cent grain infestation on number basis 49
Management of pulse beetle by the application of different
4.2.6 49 – 50
edible and non-edible oils
Adult mortality on freshly treated seeds after 24 hours of
4.2.6.1 50 – 54
treatment
4.2.6.2 55 –58
treatment
4.2.6.3 Adult mortality on freshly treated seeds after 120 hours of 59– 62
treatment

4.2.6.4 63 – 66
treatment
4.2.6.5 Adult emergence at 45 DAT 67 – 71
4.2.6.6 Effect of different treatments on seed damage at 45 DAT 72 – 77
4.2.6.7 Effect of different treatments on loss in weight (g) 45 DAT 78 – 80
4.2.6.8 Weight of frass on (g) basis 45 DAT in different treatments 81
5 SUMMARY 83 – 88
6 CONCLUSION 89 – 90
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY i–x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PARTICULARS PAGE No.
No.
Fecundity of pulse beetle (C. chinensis) on seeds of field pea
1 32
in storage
a. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of
37
C. chinensis in the first generation
b. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of
2 38
C. chinensis in the second generation
c. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of
39
C. chinensis in the third generation
a. Hatchability of eggs and sex ratio of C. chinensis on HUDP
40
15 variety of field pea during three generations
3
b. Hatchability of eggs and sex ratio of C. chinensis on DDR 23
41
variety of field pea during three generations
a. Infestation of field pea by C. chinensis in HUDP 15 variety
43
of field pea in different generations
4
b. Infestation of field pea by C. chinensis in DDR 23 variety of
44
field pea in different generations
Effect of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle up to 53
5
24 hours of treatment
Effect of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle up to 57
6
Effect of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle up to
7 61
Effect of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle up to
8 65
Adults of pulse beetle emerging out at 45 DAT in different
9 69
treatments on field pea varieties (number basis)
Per cent infestation of field pea by C. chinensis 45 DAT in
10 75
different treatments
Loss in weight (g) of field pea by pulse beetle on weight
11 80
basis 45 DAT in different treatments
12 Weight of frass (g) at 45 DAT in different treatments 82
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG. PAGE
PARTICULARS
No. No.
Graphical view in differences of fecundity by pulse beetle on two

1 33
varieties
Graphical view of per cent infestation of field pea by pulse beetle
2 46
during three generations
Graphical view of loss in seed weight of field pea by pulse beetle
3 46
during three generations
4 Graphical view of weight of frass of field pea during three generations 47
Efficacy of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle at 2ml, 3ml
5 54
and 5ml/ kg seed doses after 24 hours
6 58
7 62
8 66
Efficacy of various oils at 2ml concentration on the adult emergence of
9 70
pulse beetle
10 70
pulse beetle
11 71
pulse beetle
Efficacy of different treatments on seed damage per cent by pulse
12 76
beetle at 2ml concentration
13 76
14 77
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE PAGE
PARTICULRS
No. NO.
1 Healthy seeds of HUDP 15 variety 28
2 Healthy seeds of DDR 23 variety 28
3 Stock culture sample of pulse beetle 28
4 500 ml plastic containers/jars were chosen for the experiment 28
5 Edible and non-edible oils sample 28
6 Eggs of Pulse beetle on HUDP 15 variety seed 32
7 Larvae of pulse beetle 39
8 Adult male and female of pulse beetle 39
9 HUDP 15 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetles 47
10 DDR 23 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetle 47

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Words Abbreviations/symbols
Centimeter cm
Co-workers et al.
Critical difference C.D.
Degree of centigrade ºC
Figure Fig.
Gram (s) g
Hectare ha
Kilogram kg
Meter m
Non-significant N.S.
Number No.
Per /
Per cent %
Replication R
Serial No.Sl. No.
Significant at 5% level*
Standard error of means SEm (±)
This is i.e.
Coefficient variation C.V.
Standard deviation S.D.
Millimeter ml
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter l
INTRODUCTION
The earliest human - domesticated plants are believed to have been legumes.
Grain legumes have been an important part of the social evolution over the past 10,000
years, Carbonized seeds of pea have been found in fireplaces of the Neolithic age (7000
to 8000 years B.C.) in Turkey. These seeds formed the basis of food in this region and
spread to the north-west and south - west (into Africa) and towards India (Gajzágó,
2004). Peas probably originated in Abyssinia and Afghanistan, with areas in the
Mediterranean area colonised later. Then, pea spread to other regions of Europe and Asia
(Cousin, 1997). The scientific name of pea is Pisum sativum L. and it is very popular
pulse crop. Its green pods as well as dry seeds are in great demand for cooking as
vegetable and as pulse, respectively
Pea is a cool season legume crop and can be grown for green manure, animal feed
or for human consumption. The human consumption of pulse is lower in Europe than in
other regions of the world (Schneider, 2002). In Europe, however, pea is an important
pulse crop used for both livestock feed and human nutrition. World grain pea production
in 2013 was 11 million tons about 5.5 million tons less than in 1990 when the highest
worldwide production was registered (FAOSTAT, 2015).
. Pea seeds have high nutrition values as, it contains 51 per cent carbohydrate, 26
per cent protein, 4 per cent minerals, 3 per cent vitamins (Yadav et al., 1994). Pea protein
is deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids, but contains relatively high levels of lysine,
making it a good dietary complement to cereals. Antinutritional factors, although present
in pea, are relatively minor and do not adversely affect crop use (McPhee, 2003).
Pulses constitute an important ingredient of vegetarian diet in a country like India

where a sizeable number of citizens from both rich and poor section of the society, follow
vegetarianism. Because of their high protein content, people use to consume pulses daily
in their diet in the form of “daal” amongst the various pulses grown in India (Dixit,
2015).
1
The scientific classification of field pea is as below (Cronquist, 1981).
Kingdom Plantae
Division Magnoliophyta
Class Magnoliopsida
Order Fabales
Family Fabaceae
Genus Pisum L.
Species sativum
Scientific name: Pisum sativum L.
Common name: Filed pea, Garden pea
The Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is one of the most important grain legumes in
the world. Its grain is a major source of plant-based dietary protein for animals. Pea is a
legume native to South-West Asia and was one of the first cultivated crops. World
production of field pea is 571,234 ha with the most important producing countries being
Canada, China, India and the Russian Federation, all representing almost 70 per cent of
the total crop area. It is consumed as green vegetables (whole pods or immature seed) in
Asian countries and as dry seed in Europe, Australia, America and Mediterranean
regions. It ranks third in the world production amongst the food legumes (Ghafoor and
Arshad, 2008). Field Pea is a popular pulse crop in India. India is one of the largest
producer, consumer and importer of pulses to the world. Garden pea and field pea are
cultivated in India. Garden pea is harvested as green pods and cooked as fresh or canned
for subsequent uses. Field pea is generally grown for dry seeds which are used for a
variety of culinary and pulse (Kirar et al., 2018).
In India the average productivity of field pea is 906 kg/ha. The major field pea
growing states are Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra. In Madhya
Pradesh it is cultivated in 3.48 lakh ha area with 2.80 lakh tonnes production. In
Jharkhand, pea is a very popular crop of Rabi season. Field pea in Panna district of
Madhya Pradesh occupies 11,680 ha with an average productivity of 1,666 kg/ha (Reddy,
2
2010). After the harvest of the crop, the seeds are necessarily stored in godowns and
warehouses for further cultivation and consumption. Pulse beetles, Callosobruchus spp.
(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) are the most important pests in storage on different pulses in
tropical and subtropical regions of the world. In India, 17 species of bruchids belonging
to 11 genera have been recorded infesting different pulses crops. The genus
Callosobruchus attacks grain legumes during both pre and post harvest stages all over the
world (Arora, 1977). But Pruthi and Singh (1950) described eight species of
Callosobruchus L. whereas Raina (1970) reduced the possibility of availability of
Bruchid to five known species of Callosobruchus from India; three are commonly met in
stored pulses i.e. C. chinensis L., C. maculatus F. and C. analis F.
Gujar and Yadav (1978) reported 55 to 60 per cent loss in seed weight and 45.5 to
66.3 per cent loss in protein content due to its damage and thus, pulse grains become unfit
for human consumption. Several bruchid species attack cereals and pulses in the storage
and cause a weight loss of 10 to 15 per cent with a germination loss ranging from 50 to
92 per cent as reported by Adugna (2006). Amongst the stored grain pests of pulses, the
pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L., is considered to be the most important and
economic pest (Ahmad et al. 2003). The pulse beetle adults are small reddish brown
coloured insects (2 - 3) mm long, with the typical rounded appearance compared to the
other members of the bruchid family. The head is hypognathous and provided with a pair
of segmented antennae, which are serrate or pectinate. Antennae are comparatively
longer in males than in females. The mouthparts are biting type, which are best used
during the larval stages. The pro-thorax is freely moveable. The thorax bears three pairs
of legs with femur often swollen. There are two pairs of wings; the first pair is modified
into elytra covering only a part of the abdomen. The hind pair of wings is membranous
and longer than forewings and protected by the elytra. Eggs laid by females emerge in 5 –
20 days. The eggs are oval and translucent at the time they are laid. The larva moults five
times and before it enters into the pupal stage, it cuts a round window on the testa of the
seed coat. Later, the adult emerges through the window leaving a neat round hole. The
total development period is approximately 30 days (Radha and Susheela, 2014).
Casewellet (1973) observed 50 to 60 per cent of insect damage on pulse grains

after six months of traditional storage. Sharma (1984) recorded that the differential rate of
3
damage infested by C. chinensis in different pulses were reported to be 68, 56, 49 and 52
per cent in cowpea, Bengal gram, red gram and green gram, respectively, over a storage
period of six months.
Pulse beetle is an internal feeder and it is not advisable to mix insecticides with
food grains. Although, chemical insecticides like fumigants and dusts are effective for the
control of bruchids, but it is not applicable at farm level because the rural storage
structures are generally not air tight. Moreover, it is also not safe to mix insecticides with
food grain for protection against insects ( Bekele et al.,1995). Under such circumstances,
alternative methods like, the use of inert dusts, edible oils and plant products which can
easily by used the farmers, need to be considered. The plant products possessing
insecticidal properties are becoming an attractive alternative to the synthetic, dangerous
and more expensive insecticide used in developing countries (Rajapkse et al., 1998).
Recent researchers have revealed how indigenous plant oils and their bioactive
compounds affect behavior, growth and development, survival and reproduction for C.
chinensis (Patel et al., 2003). The toxicity of essential oils of various plants against C.
chinensis had been recorded by various scientists (Raja et al., 2001).
As the field pea is an important pulse and it’s suffering by pulse beetle is high, the
present study entitled “Biology and eco-friendly management of pulse beetle (C.
chinensis L.) on field pea (P. sativum L.) in storage” was undertaken with the following
objectives:
A. Biological studies of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions

1. Egg laying (fecundity) (No.)
2. Egg hatching ( % )
3. Larval + pupal duration (days)
4. Adult longevity (days)
5. Extent of damage in terms of
a. Loss in weight (g) of the pea grains after 30, 60 and 90 days.
4
b. Per cent seed damaged on counting basis after 30, 60 and 90 days.
c. Weight of frass (g).
B. Management trails of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions by

applying edible and non-edible oils
1. Adult mortality after 24, 120 and 240 hours of treatment.
2. Number of adults emerged after 45 days of treatment.
a. Loss in weight (g) of the pea grains after 45 days of treatment.
b. Per cent seed damage on counting basis after 45 days of treatment.
c. Weight of frass (g).
5
Chapter II
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
6
Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Bruchids are very important stored pests on pulses. In India, 117 species of
bruchids belonging to 11 genera have been recorded (Arora 1977). Leguminous grains
are prone to invasion of number of insect pests in which pulse beetle is one of the most
destructive pest of black gram (Ghoshal & Senapati, 2006). The genus Callosobruchus
includes a number of economically important species that attack stored pulses throughout
the world but Callosobruchus chinensis, Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus
analis are most important in India.
Literature pertaining to biology and varietal resistance of pulse beetle along with
efficacy of grain protectants has been collected and presented as below.
2.1 Biology of pulse beetle
2.1.1 Incubation period and eggs lying of pulse beetle
It is primarily a pest of seeds of mung, pigeon pea and lentil but found in almost
all the pulses in India. Chickpea seeds in developing countries suffer heavy qualitative
and quantitative losses due to pests attack (IITA, 1989). Howe and Currie (1964)
recorded an average of 45 eggs with a range of 20-64 at similar temperature and humidity
conditions. Takasugi (1924) reported between 70-80 eggs at atmospheric conditions.
Eggs hatch in about 4-5 days. Hatching of eggs can easily be seen by looking under the
microscope.
Borthakur (1992) recorded that foods on which the pulse beetle was bred,
influenced the number of eggs laid, presumably better foods enabled the larvae to yield
adults with a greater potential for egg production. Effect of food on the growth and
development of insects is reported by Srivastava and Bhatia (1958) in different vegetable
seeds. The growth was very fast in cowpea and chickpea but slow in garden pea. Chavan
et al. (1997) noted that brown, black, grey and red colored seeds of cowpea were
preferred by C. chinensis L than white colored seeds. According to Khokar and Singh
7
(1978), Hussain and Roy (1997), Neog and Singh (2011) found that seed characters such
as size, volume, color, shape and texture of seed coat were not related with the
ovipositional preference of bruchids on different host seeds. Prasad et al. (2011) reported
developmental period of C. chinensis on chickpea was dependent to the moisture content.
Sahoo and Chandrakar ( 2013) counted the maximum days of incubation period
(8.13 days) was in neem oil which were treated with 0.25ml/ 100g seed on chickpea,
followed by karanj oil (7.13 days) which was at par with nilgiri oil (7.08 days).
Incubation period varied from 5.39 to 8.13 days on all the treated seeds of chickpea. All
the treatments were significantly superior over untreated control (4.50 days). Incubation
period was significantly at par on mustard (6.06 days), mahua (6.13 days), coconut (6.38
days) and soybean (6.13 days) oils, respectively. It concludes that the neem oil can be
used to reduce the pulse beetle infestation significantly in storage. They also found that
minimum number of eggs (10.70 eggs/100 seeds) were laid out by a single female in
neem oil on chickpea, followed by karanj oil (12.05 eggs/100 seeds) which were at par
with nilgiri oil (12.21 eggs/100seeds) treated with 0.25ml/100g of chickpea seeds.
Oviposition varied from 10.70 to 20.26 eggs/100 seeds on all the treated seeds of
chickpea. All the treatments were significantly superior over untreated control (25.66
eggs/100 seeds). Biswas and Biswas (2005) studied that citronella and neem oil at 0.25
and 5.0 ml/ kg of seed effectively controlled C. chinensis population by reducing
oviposition rate.
The egg period of Callosobruchus chinensis was varied from 5.21 to 6.33 days in
different treatments as against 5.67 days in untreated. The minimum time of 5.21 days
were taken for hatching in Cymbopogon citratus treated green gram whereas, 6.33 days
were taken on Aegle marmelos treated seeds. The longest egg period was recorded on
Aegle marmelos leaf powder followed by Ocimum tenuiflorum leaf powder while the
shortest egg period was on Cymbopogon citratus leaf powder reported by (Mishra et al.,
2013).
Chakraborty et al. (2015) observed in first generation of bruchids, that

significantly higher number of eggs (160.25 eggs/100 g of seeds) was laid on kidney bean
8
as compared to the other pulses during the first generation. Next to kidney bean, higher
number of eggs was also recorded on cowpea (109.25 eggs per 100 g of seeds ) followed
by black gram (102 eggs per 100 g of seeds), small pea (92.75 eggs per 100 g of seeds )
and green gram (79.25 eggs per 100 g of seeds ) which were again at par with each other.
During the second generation again higher numbers of eggs (111 eggs per 100 g of seeds)
were laid on kidney bean as compared to the other pulses. Next to kidney bean, higher
number of eggs was also recorded on cowpea (110.5 eggs per 100 g of seeds) followed
by black gram (102 eggs per 100 g of seeds), small pea (92.75 eggs per 100 g of seeds)
and green gram (79.25 eggs per 100 g of seeds).
Bhaduria and Jakhmola (2006) reported that the ovipositional preference and
survival of the pulse beetles on black gram which were less preferred for oviposition. The
variation of egg deposition on different pulse species associated with the morphological
characteristics of the seeds. The seeds of chickpea were large in size having larger
surface area which favoured larger egg deposition. Chakraborty and Mondal (2016)
observed that pulse beetle laid maximum number of eggs in larger surface area of seed in
kidney bean. This was in conformity with the observation of Teotia and Singh (1968)
who had reported that the fecundity of C. chinensis depended upon the size and quality of
seeds with seed coat. Although the seeds of lentil and mungbean are small in size than
blackgram but the egg deposition was higher on lentil and mungbean seeds. The smooth
seed surface and well filled seeds of lentil and mungbean encouraged the beetle for
higher egg deposition which was supported by Nwanze and Horber (1976).
Rajak and Pandey (1965) investigated the biology of Callosobruchus chinensis

(L.) on cowpeas and they found that females of C. chinensis laid 50-103 eggs in her life
time. The incubation period lasted for 3-18 days. The larval and pupal stages were passed
inside the seeds. Except in winter, the average larval period was 29 days, the mean
duration of the four instars being 2.4, 3.5, 6.4 and 16.7 days, respectively. During the
coldest months of the year during from November to February, the larvae hibernated. The
pupal period lasted for 6-21 days. The adult male was smaller and short lived than the
female. The duration of complete life cycle varied from season to season, and a minimum
of 17 and maximum of 114 days were recorded. The average number of eggs was laid by
9
a single female 85.6 eggs which varied from 75 to 95 eggs laid/female. Eggs were cigar
shaped and shiny bright yellow. They were attached singly to developing pea pods, often
with several eggs on each pod. Eggs hatched within 3-5 days with an average of 4.0±1.0
days. The viability of eggs was 94 per cent. The pre-oviposition, oviposition and post-
oviposition periods of pulse beetle were 0.4, 8.0 and 2.2 days, respectively (Verma and
Anandhi, 2010).
2.1.2 Eggs hatching
Raina (1970) worked on biology of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in the

laboratory on seeds of mung (Phaseolus aureus) at 30 °C temperature and 70 per cent
R.H. He observed that the average of 78 eggs/female were laid, the egg stage lasted for 3-
5 days and 94 to 99 per cent of the eggs hatched. The duration of post embryonic
development was averaged 18.8 days and males and females occurred in about equal
numbers. There was no significant difference in the development times for eggs laid on
successive days of oviposition, but mortality was lowest among eggs laid early and was
usually 100 per cent among those eggs laid on the last day of oviposition.
2.1.3 Larval + Pupal period of pulse beetle
The larva of C. maculatus feed inside the pulse seed and without specific
protection, heavy amount of grains is lost within few months (Seek et al., 1996). The
larvae and pupae completed their development in 22 days in untreated green gram
whereas, the maximum larval + pupal period of 27.21 days was observed in Pongamia
pinnata leaf powder treatment followed by Azadirachta indica (26.58 days),
Cymbopogon citratus (26.24 days), Vitex negundo (25.68 days) and Annona squamosa
leaf powder (25.48 days). These were also statistically at par with each other.
Significantly high larval + pupal days of C. chinensis was noticed on Pongamia pinnata,
Azadirachta indica leaf powder treated green gram seed as compared to Lantana camera,
Ocimum tenuiflorum, Vitex negundo, Annona squamosa and Aegle marmelos leaf powder
treatment. However, it was statistically at par with Azadirachta indica leaf powder and
Cymbopogon citratus powder treatments. Larval + pupal period in untreated check was
22.00 days, while it was the longest on Pongamia pinnata leaf powder (27.21days). This
10
treatment was superior to rest of the treatments although it was closely followed by
Azadirachta indica leaf powder 26.58 days was observed and reported by (Mishra et al.,
2013).
Borikar and Pawar (1996) studied and reported that the maximum duration of egg
and larval + pupal period were 5 and 6 days, respectively. Larvae remain inside the seed
and the appearance of capped exit hole on the seed shows the pupal stage (Singh and
Pandey, 2001). The adults do not need food or water, and can reproduce immediately
after emergence observed by (Kawecki, 1995. Messina and Slade, 1999).
Sahoo and Chandrakar ( 2013) counted the maximum (27.25) days of larval +
pupal period was recorded in karanj oil when treated with 0.25ml/100g seeds of chickpea,
followed by neem oil (26.25 days) which was at par with mustard oil (26.13 days).
Larval+pupal period varied from 23.25 to 27.25 days on all the treated seeds of chickpea.
All the treatments were significantly superior over untreated control (20.19 days).
Borikar and Pawar (1996) and Mandal and Konar (2006) counted and reported
that the maximum duration of egg, larval and pupal period was 5, 17 and 6 days,
respectively on survival of different stages of C. chinensis during development on green
gram management measures.
Verma and Anandhi (2010) found that, the larvae passed through at least 4 instars
in which all were creamy colored ‘C’ shaped, scarabeiform larva. Pupa was obtect type
and also creamy colored. The larva and pupal stages were passed inside the seed. The
larval and pupal period varied from 13-20 days with average of 16.4±2.07 days. Raina
(1970) also reported the that pupal period of pulse beetle was around 18.20 days.
2.1.4 Mean developmental period of pulse beetle
Chakraborty et al. (2015) worked on biology of pulse beetle and reported that, the
mean developmental period ranged from 26.75 to 32.25 days in different pulses in first
generation. Longest developmental period was recorded in kidney bean (32.25 days)
followed by black gram (30.25 days), green gram (29.75 days), and small pea (27.75
11
days) and shortest in cowpea (26.75 days). The parameters found from kidney bean and
black gram were at par with each other in first generation of bruchids. But in the second
generation the mean developmental period ranged from 26 days to 35.25 days. Longest
developmental period was recorded from kidney bean(35.25 days) followed by black
gram (29.5 days), small pea (28 days), green gram (27.25 days) and cowpea (26 days).
2.1.5 Life cycle and Adult longevity of pulse beetle:
Mishra et al. (2013) studied the biology of pulse beetle and observed that the
mean adult longevity (4.32 days) of C. chinensis was minimum on green gram as
influenced by the admixing of the seeds with plant product, Vitex negundo leaf powder
the maximum longevity (7.23 days) was noticed in untreated check. In other treatments
the longevity of adults were 4.75, 4.86, 5.33, 5.33, 6.00 and 6.00 days recorded in
Azadirachta indica, Ocimum tenuiflorum, Lantana camera, Aegle marmelos, Annona
squamosa and Cymbopogon citratus leaf powder respectively. The highest value of the
longevity was counted in Pongamia pinnata leaf powder (6.38 days), followed by
Cymbopogon citratus and Annona squamosa leaf powder (6.0 days).
The mean adult survival of pulse beetle on test pulses ranged from 56.69 to 93.23
per cent during first generation. Significantly lowest adult survival was noticed from
kidney bean (56.69 per cent) followed by black gram (71.69 per cent), small pea (87.35
per cent), green gram (90.61 per cent) and highest survival rate was noticed from cow
pea. During the second generation the lowest survival rate was recorded from kidney
bean (41.82 per cent) followed by black gram (72.74 per cent), small pea (85.44 per
cent), green gram (95.32 per cent) and highest in cowpea (96.21 per cent). No significant
difference was noted between cowpea and green gram had reported by (Chakraborty et
al., 2015).
Patel et al. (2005) studied and observed the average duration of life cycle varied
from 33.51 to 43.85 days. The minimum duration of the life cycle was recorded 33.51
days in green gram followed by cowpea (34.02 days). The longest duration of life cycle
was recorded 43.85 days in pea followed by bengal gram (38.91 days) and grass pea
(38.70 days).
12
Bato and Sanchez (1972) investigated the life cycle of C. chinensis (L.) on the
seeds on mung (Phaseolus aureus) with 14.7 per cent moisture content in the laboratory
in Philippines during 1970 -71 at a mean temperature of 83.61°F and 67.79 per cent R.H.
They recorded that the duration of egg, larval and pupal stages were 4.61, 12.48 and 3.94
days, respectively. Adult female lived 2 to 22 days and males 2 to 14 days.
Adult beetles were chunky, 5 mm long, brownish beetles flecked with black, grey
and white patches. The tip of the abdomen extended beyond the hard wing covers. The
portion of the abdomen that was visible, white in colour and marked with two black oval
spots. The male was different from female ones by having pectinate type of antenna
whereas females having serrate antenna. The total developmental period was calculated
from the day of oviposition to adult emergence. Longevity of adults for males ranged 9 to
14 with average of 11.0±1.87 days and for females was ranged 9 to 12 days with an
average of 9.6±1.14 days. Almost similar observations of male and female longevity as
9.76 and 9.44 days and larval + pupal period varied from 22 to 28 days with an average
of 25.2+2.59 days counted by ( Verma and Anandhi, 2010).
2.1.6 Extent of damages by pulse beetle to pulses
Pulse is annual and seasonal crop that can be stored for several months, however,
these are at high risk of damage due to post-harvest losses which can be up to 25 to 50
per cent. During storage, pulse beetles or bruchids attack the pulse seeds and
Callosobruchus chinensis L. and Callosobruchus maculatus F. are common bruchid
species. These bruchids cause about 5 to 10 per cent losses during storage. These losses
vary widely in different climatic conditions such as pulse varieties, geographical
locations, processing and storage techniques (Lal and Verma, 2007). These losses are
linked to insufficient and poor storage facilities, lack of knowledge of advanced
technology in post-harvest of pulse management and harsh climatic conditions
particularly in developing countries like India reported by (Singh and Ron Larson, 2016).
Among the stored pests, pulse beetle (cowpea weevil) Callosobruchus chinensis
L. (Bruchidae: Coleoptera) is the most destructive species of stored legume seeds in India
as well as in other countries. It causes 33 per cent infestation to legume seeds as
13
compared to 3 per cent damage in cucurbits, solanaceous vegetables and oil seeds
counted by (Mukherjee et al., 1970).
The insects spend its entire immature stage in individual legume seeds, where
they cause weight loss, decrease in germination potential and diminish the market as well
as nutritional value of the commodity. In India Gujar and Yadav (1978) worked and
reported 55 to 60 per cent loss in seed weight and 45.5 to 66.3 per cent loss in protein
content due its damage and thus, pulse grains become unfit for human consumption.
Rahman (1971) investigated and reported 12.5 per cent loss due to pulse beetles
infestation in pulses stored in warehouses. Ali et al. (1999) reported that mungbean,
Vigna radiata appeared to be the most common and suitable host for C. chinensis in
respect of oviposition, egg deposition, adult emergence (66.11-70.29%) and caused 50.37
to 57.58 per cent grain content loss in storage.
Chakraborty et al. (2015) studied and observed that loss in grain weight among
different pulses ranged from 2.61 to 5.21 per cent in first generation. Black gram
recorded the significantly lowest weight loss of 2.61 per cent while the highest weight
loss was recorded from cowpea (5.21 %). The weight loss in cow pea was followed by
kidney bean, green gram, and small pea of 4.21 per cent, 3.86 per cent and 3.36 per cent,
respectively. During the second generation, cowpea recorded the significantly highest
weight loss of grain of 6.22 per cent followed by green gram (5.00 per cent), black gram
(9.89 %), small pea (2.90 %) and kidney bean (2.76 %).
The adult pulse beetle does not eat the seed, they mate and oviposit on them. The
newly hatched larva bores into the seed and starts feeding on its contents till the whole
endosperm are eaten up. However, C. chinensis is not only considered to be the most
destructive insect but also causing severe damage to the extent of 93.33 per cent in
different pulse crops was reported (Parsai et al. 1989).
Braich and Simwat (1984) reported the effect of three level of infestation i.e. 1, 2,
3 pairs per 500g moong of initial infestation of C. chinensis and C. maculates on the
population build up and resultant loss to moong. They further reported that weight loss,
14
grain damage and germination, accordingly varied from 1.7 to 21.5, 1.6 to 53.3 and 96.3
to 59.7 per cent, respectively. The loss of moong was significantly higher at higher (3
pairs) level of infestations of insect species than 2 pair and one pair.
The ovipositional and developmental period have been guided by smoothness of

seed coat of the grains. Maximum seed damage was observed in chickpea and minimum
in blackgram. The second highest damage was observed in mungbean followed by lentil.
The number of larvae of C. chinensis feed inside the seeds responsible for higher damage
(Sharma et al., 2016), (Aslam, 2004) and (Khare and Johari, 1984). Khare and Johari
(1984) reported that severe infestation of chickpea resulted in their germination and led to
100 per cent damage. Besides this, chickpea was found more suitable and blackgram was
less suitable for feeding by the pulse beetle larvae. Lentil seeds were the smallest with
damage of 12.3 per cent, while blackgram seeds were the medium sized with 6.9 per cent.
This result indicated that the size of the pulse seed did not show any effect on the damage
of the seed. So the thickness of seed coat had greater impact on the damage of the seed
had reported by (Podoler and Applebaum, 1968 and Singal, 1987). Although there is no
actual loss estimate in farmer’s storage system, as high as 98.04, 73.20, 54.37 and 64.33
per cent grains of mungbean, black gram, lentil and chickpea, respectively, were reported
to be infested by pulse beetle in Bangladesh by (Anonymous, 1984).
The differential rate of damage infested by C. chinensis in different pulses was

reported to be 68, 56, 49 and 52 per cent in cowpea, Bengal gram, red gram and green
gram, respectively, over a storage period of 6 months (Sharma, 1984). The grain damage
was as high as 69.93 per cent under storage condition was observed by (Singh et al.,
2001).
C. chinensis is a major economically important pest of all pulses and causes 40 to

50 per cent in losses of pulses storage were reported by Gosh and Durbey (2003).
2.2 Management of pulse beetle
Usage of chemical insecticides could not be recommended against pulse beetles

as their grubs are internal feeders. Another reason is that they are harmful to vertebrates.
15
Singh and Srivastava (1983) reported that the pulse beetle is developing resistance to
Malathion. The use of indigenous plant products is of novel approach of pest
management as these are comparatively safer to mammals due to their rapid
biodegradable nature (Singh et al., 2001). In Bangladesh, usually synthetic chemical
insecticides and fumigants are used to protect the pulses from the infestation of pulse
beetle in storage. But the use of chemical insecticides causes several problems like
resistance and toxic residues in food. They also opined that, it is an urgent need to find
out a safe and sound alternative to chemical insecticides to protect the stored products in
storage. During the last two decades voluminous research works were carried out on
botanicals with little success. Recently researchers have paid much attention to develop
resistant variety to the pest. The works on the varietal susceptibility of gram and other
pulses have been reported from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Occidental and Oriental
Countries, but information of the different varieties of lentil, mungbean, chickpea and
black gram is not so available in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture
(BINA) has selected some genotypes of chickpea, lentil, mungbean and black gram with
a view to develop new variety. Before releasing it is important to test these genotypes for
their resistance to pulse beetle (Ahmad et al., 2018). However, the use of chemical
pesticides not only involves potential health hazards, residues, pollution, and
contamination, but also beyond the financial capability of the farmers reported by (Khaire
et al., 1993).
Usage of fumigants and dusts are effective for the control of bruchids, but
impractical at farm level because the rural storage structures are generally not air tight. If
the food grains are stored for consumption, pesticide application may be harmful to
vertebrates (Bekele et al., 1995).
2.2.1 Effect of oils on egg lying, adult emerging and seed damage by pulse beetle
Singal (1995) noticed that coconut, groundnut and mustard oil as surface
protectants proved highly effective in protecting seeds of chickpea for 8 months storage,
in terms of seed damage and weight loss. The minimum number of eggs (4.78 eggs/5
females) recorded in neem oil coated seeds was statistically at par with karanj
16
(6.67eggs/5 females). Minimum adult emergence (0.56 beetles) was recorded in neem oil
coated seeds was statistically at par with karanj (0.89 beetles) after sixty days of
treatment.
Chander et al. (2007) observed the effects of 11 grain protectants, namely neem
(Azadirachta indica) seed kernel powder at 20 g (T1), neem oil at 10 ml (T2), mustard oil
(T3) and groundnut oil (T4) at 7.5 ml each; turmeric powder at 3.5 g (T5), mustard oil +
turmeric powder at 3.75 ml+1.75 g/kg seed (T6), groundnut oil + turmeric powder at 3.75
ml+1.75 g/kg seed (T7); and 7 cm covering with each of saw dust (T8), sandy soil (T9),
dung cake ash (T10) and wheat husk covering (T11) on egg lying, adult emergence and
seed damage by C. chinensis on treated and untreated (control) green gram seeds at 1, 35,
70 and 105 days after storage. Green gram seeds treated with all the grain protectants
resulted in significantly lesser number of eggs laid by C. chinensis compared to the
control after 1, 35, 70 and 105 days of storage. The minimum number of eggs (0 egg/500
seeds) was observed in T2, however, it was at par with T8, T9, and T10. The treatment,
T5 (67 eggs/500 seeds) was the least effective, followed by T11 (35 eggs), after 105 days
of storage. All the grain protectants were significantly effective based on adult emergence
and seed damage compared to the untreated control after 35, 70 and 105 days of storage.
There were no adult emergence and seed damage after 105 days of storage with T2, T9
and T10. The maximum (77.33) number of emerged adults and seed damage (7.20 %)
were recorded with T11.
Bhardwaj and Verma (2013) noticed that the tested oils provided significant
protection to pea seeds from the damage by C. chinensis. Neem oil was the most effective
treatment allowing only 0.11 per cent damage followed by karanj (0.18%), cedar
(0.29%), mustard (0.47%) olive (0.87%) and apricot (1.43%). Seed damage in untreated
control was 9.72 per cent. No seed damage was recorded in neem oil at 5 per cent
concentration and it was at par with its lower concentrations (3 and 1 %), karanj (5, 3 and
1%), cedar and mustard at 5 and 3 per cent, olive and apricot at 5 per cent. Neem, karanj
and cedar oil minimized the weight loss in treated seeds to 0.11, 0.22 and 0.30 per cent,
respectively as against 11.02 per cent in the control. Among all these treatments, mixing
17
of oils of neem and karanj at 1 per cent was effective to minimize weight loss due to C.
chinensis infestation.
Parsai et al. (1990) had observed effect of groundnut oil, mustard oil @ 0.3 per
cent concentration on the fecundity, longevity of C. chinensis and caused grain weight
loss. They observed that the number of eggs, adult emergence and grain weight loss
decreased with increase in oil concentration. Jakhmola and Singh (1971) tested and
recorded the seeds of ten varieties of green gram (Phaseolus aureus) in the laboratory in
India during 1969-70 for suitability of food for Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Adult
females showed a preference for oviposition in varieties with large seeds and adult reared
in varieties with large seeds were larger than those from small seeds. Differences in time
taken to complete development, and rate of survival, were not statistically significant for
the different varieties.
Kahare et al. (1993) studied and made an attempt to explore herbal product as
protectants against C. chinensis in grains of Bengal gram. The lowest number of eggs of
the bruchid was laid on chickpea treated with a 1 per cent extract of Azadirachta indica A
Juss and 2 per cent extract of P. glabra.
Rajapakse et al. (1997) investigated the possible use of four vegetable oils (maize,
groundnut, sunflower and sesame) in managing bruchid legume pests C .chinensis, C.
maculatus and C. rhodesianus was investigated. All four oils tested significantly reduced
the oviposition of all 3 bruchid species at 10 ml/kg and also significantly reduced the
longevity of the adult of C. maculatus and C. chinensis at this dose. Only maize and
sunflower oil caused a significant reduction of longevity of C. rhodidianus at 10ml/kg.
Srinivasan (2008) recorded the efficacy of some indigenous plant oils, viz., castor,
eucalyptus, sunflower and neem oil at 5 and 10 ml/kg of seeds against pulse beetle
(Callosobruchus chinensis) on pigeonpea. The findings after 9 months of treatment also
revealed that neem oil at 10 and 5 ml/kg of seeds was highly effective against C.
chinensis registering the minimum seed damage of 9.2 and 15.0 per cent as against 96.0
per cent in untreated check. The loss in seed weight was also less in neem oil (10.6 and
18
14.5% in 10 and 5 ml, respectively) followed by 10 ml castor oil (22.8%) when compared
to 49.9 per cent in the control.
Sahoo and Chandraker (2013) observed and noted that minimum seed damage
(9.25 %) was in karanj oil on chickpea, followed by neem oil (11.44 %) treated with
0.25ml/100g seed. Per cent seed damage varied from 9.25 to 20.50 per cent among all the
treated seeds. All the treatments were significantly superior over untreated control (28.35
%). They also observed the treatment having 0.25ml/100gm seeds showed minimum
weight loss (8.06 %) in karanj oil, followed by neem oil (9.88 %). Per cent weight loss
varied from 8.06 to 16.34 per cent on all the treated chickpea seeds. All the treatments
were significantly superior over untreated control (23.81 %). They observed per cent seed
damage after 90 days and reported that minimum seed damage (30.39 %) was in karanj
oil treated with 0.25ml/100g seed on chickpea, followed by neem oil (33.19 %). Per cent
seed damage varied from 30.39 to 43.79 per cent on all the treated chickpea seeds. All the
treatments were significantly superior over untreated control (65.71 %). Mustard (35.35
%), nilgiri (36.44 %), mahua (38.66 %), sunflower (37.56 %), soybean (38.03 %) and
coconut (43.79 %) oils showed significantly lower per cent seed damage as compared to
untreated control. They also studied per cent weight loss after 90 days that was noticed
that minimum weight loss (23.73 %) was in karanj oil on chickpea, followed by neem oil
(25.95 %). Per cent weight loss varied from 23.73 to 35.14 per cent on all the treated
0.25ml/100g chickpea seeds. All the treatments were significantly superior over untreated
control (45.26 %).
Singh et al. (1990) studied and reported that the oils of groundnut, coconut,
mustard, sesame, soybean and rapeseed used as surface protectants at 1, 3 and 5 ml/kg of
seed to test their efficacy against Callosobruchus chinensis on a variety of chickpea seeds
showed only 0.5 per cent damage when treated with mustard oil @ 5 and 3 ml/kg, and
rapeseed at 5 ml/kg.
Tripathi et al. (2006) reported that neem oil was effective in reducing the
damage to grains of pigeon pea by C. chinensis. They also observed that neem oil at
2ml/kg of pigeon pea seeds against C. chinensis reduced the weight loss.
19
Tripathy et al., (2001) evaluated the efficacy of different vegetable oils ( castor,
neem, pongamia, coconut, Indian mustard, sesame, soyabean and sunflower) at 2 and
4ml/k and 8 plant (Annona saquamosa, Eupatorium glandulosum, Lantana camera,
Strychnos nux-vomica, Tridax procumbens, Datura fistula, Sphoeranthus indica and
Sphaeranthus indicus) and neem powder at 20 and 40ml/kg and extracts of three plants
(L.camara, Ageratum conyzoides and vitex negunda) 2.5,5.0,7.5 and 10.0 ml/kg against
pulse beetle, C.chinensis, infesting blackgram (cv. T9). All the oil treatments were
superior in protecting the seeds from pulse beetle attack. The oil of neem, caster and
coconut at both the doses proved most effective in protecting the seed for about 9 months
after treatment.
2.2.2 Effect of oils on adult longevity
Sahoo and Chandrakar (2013) worked on management of pulse beetle and

reported that, seeds where treated with neem oil (0.25ml/100g). Minimum adult longevity
recorded (5.75 days) which was at par with karanj oil (5.94 days). Adult longevity varied
from 5.75 to 7.94 days among all the treated seeds. All the treatments were significantly
superior over untreated control (9.40 days).
De Luca (1966) revealed that Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) develop in mature

and dry seeds on arhar and do not require for survival or reproduction. Males are more
active and better flier than females. Males live for 7-10 days while females live for 5-10
days.
No adult emergence was observed in deltamethrin, karanj oil and soybean oil
treated seeds, while, the highest number of adults (38.40) were emerged from eucalyptus
oil treated seeds. Sesame oil treatment which recorded only 0.30 per cent adult
emergence was the next best treatment followed by spinosad in which 8.55 per cent adult
emergence was reported by (Vishwamithra et al., 2014).
20
Lal and Viola (2012) investigated four vegetable oils viz, neem oil (Azadirachta
indica), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), sunflower oil (Helianthus annus) and castor
oil (Ricinus communis) each were applied @ 1 ml and 3 ml/ kg seeds of pigeon pea
against the pulse beetles (Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.); their effectiveness with both
the dosages i.e. 1 ml and 3 ml/ kg seeds in reducing the egg laying and adult emergence
and normally delayed the developmental period. The infestation of beetle after 120 days
of treatment with eucalyptus oil, castor oil and neem oil at higher doses i.e. 3ml/kg seed
was recorded in terms of reduction in weight loss of the grain, which gave 100 per cent
control while at lower 1ml/kg seed dose of these oils was also found effective ( 0.33, 0.46
and 0.55%). The results showed that the oils do effect the protoplasm of the egg and
larval feeding , hence oils proved to be most effective and safest method to control the
pulse beetle for stored pulses. Out of two dosages applied, 3ml/kg seed was found most
effective in minimizing the pest incidence. Seed treatment with different oils and
different doses such as @ 1ml and 3ml/kg seed has no significant adverse effect on seed
germination after 120 days of treatment.
Ramazan (1994) investigated the effect of some edible oils viz., cotton seed,
sunflower, groundnut, soybean and mustard oil on cowpeas and green gram against C.
maculates. The dose of 30 ml/kg of oil tested was considerably more effective than a
dose of 15 ml/kg. Indian mustard oil at 30 ml/kg completely suppressed adult emergence
of the bruchid. There was no adult emergence in green gram when coated with 5 and 10
ml of above oils. Doses as low as 2, 3 and 4 ml/kg of Indian mustard, sunflower and
groundnut oil suppressed adult emergence up to 5 months, whereas, oil of neem at 2 per
cent failed to control multiplication of the pest.
2.2.3 Effect of oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle
Yadav and Bhargava (2005) investigated four plant extracts i.e. neem seed extract
(Azadirachta indica), undi extract (Calophyllum inophyllum), karanj extract (Pongamia
glabra [P. pinnata]) and mustard oil (Brassica juncea) against C. maculatus infesting
stored moth bean seeds. All plant extracts caused significant mortality in adults after
three days of treatment. The neem seed extract at 1.0 ml/100 g seeds was found to be
21
most effective, causing 49.17 per cent mortality of adults. The mean mortality varied
from 37.47 to 49.17 per cent in different oils at the highest dose level of 1.0 ml/100 g
seeds. Neem seed extract at 1.0 ml/100 g seed was the most effective in inhibiting the
oviposition (21.67 eggs/female) compared with 82.67 eggs/female in untreated seeds. At
1.0 ml/100 g seeds, karanj extract caused maximum reduction in egg viability, followed
by neem seed extract (64.58%), undi extract (51.72%) and mustard oil (48.52%). The
longevity of both the sexes decreased with the increase in doses of plant extracts. No
adverse effect of plant extracts was observed on the germination of moth bean seeds up to
90 days of treatment.
Bhardwaj et al. (2012) evaluated six vegetable oils viz., mustard, neem, karanj,
cedar, apricot and olive for protection of pea seed from pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
chinensis L. One day after treatment, maximum mortality (22.22%) was observed in
neem oil coated seeds which was statistically at par with karanj oil (16.67%). On day-3,
neem coated seeds resulted 55.56 per cent mortality and its 3 and 1 per cent
concentrations were equally effective (50.00 and 43.33% mortality). On day-7, highest
mortality (90.00%) was observed in neem coated seeds followed by karanj (77.78%),
cedar (66.67%) and mustard (36.67%). Complete mortality was recorded in neem oil
coated seeds at 5 per cent concentration and was significantly higher than 3 per cent
(90.00%) and 1 per cent (80.00%) concentration. After 15-days observation, neem and
karanj resulted 100.00 and 95.56 per cent killed, respectively. Maximum mortality was
observed in seeds coated with neem oil (72.22%), followed by karanj (65.56%), cedar
(53.33%), mustard (38.44%), olive (32.89%) and apricot (29.56%).
Bajya et al. (2007) studied 3 vegetable oils, i.e. neem (Azadirachta indica), castor
(Ricinus communis) and mustard (Brassica juncea) at 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 ml/100 g seeds,
and leaf and kernel powder of neem, karanj (Pongamia glabra [P. pinnata]) and tulsi leaf
powder (Ocimum sanctum [O. tenuiflorum]) at 4.0, 8.0 and 12.0 g/100 g seeds against
pulse beetle. Suitable controls were used in all the experiments. The 3 vegetable oils at
0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 ml/100 g seeds caused adult mortality of pulse beetle significantly up to 3
days of treatment in comparison to the control. The adult mortality also increased with
the increase in dose of each treatment. Neem oil was the most effective in giving the
22
maximum adult mortality (96.0%) after 3 days of treatment at 1.2 ml/100 g seeds,
whereas, in the control no mortality was observed. The next best treatment was the castor
oil at 1.2 ml/100 g seeds, causing 84.0 per cent mortality of the pest. The 5 plant products
at 4.0, 8.0 and 12.0 g/100 g seeds gave significant adult mortality of pulse beetle up to 3
days of treatment compared to the control. The adult mortality increased subsequently
with the increase in doses at increasing intervals. The maximum percentage mortality was
recorded with neem kernel powder (65.0), followed by karanj kernel powder (59.0), neem
leaf powder (51.0), karanj leaf powder (45.9%) and tulsi leaf powder (30.6) at 12.0 g/100
g seeds after 3 days of treatment, whereas, in the control no mortality was observed.
Ali et al., (1983) reported the efficacy of different oils viz., neem, rapeseed,
coconut, mustard, mahua and palm against the eggs, grub, adults and on the egg laying.
Neem, coconut, mustard, groundnut oil and sesame oil exhibited 100 per cent egg
mortality at 0.1 ml per 100g of seeds. Neem and coconut oils each recorded 100 per cent
grub mortality at 0.1 ml/ 100g of seeds.
Vishwamita et al. (2014) reported that, the mean number of eggs laid by the
bruchid ranged from 7.33 to 178.33 as against 353.33 recorded in untreated control.
Lowest numbers of eggs were recorded in the seeds treated with deltamethrin 2.8 EC @
0.04ml/kg seed (7.33), karanj oil @ 3ml/kg seed (14.33) and spinosad 45 SC @ 0.2ml/kg
seed (28.67) and were on par and found to be superior over other treatments. Next best
treatments were sesame oil and soybean oil @ 3ml/kg seed which recorded 69.33 and
118.33 eggs, respectively and were on par with each other. The total mortality of adults
recorded with different treatments showed the superior performance of spinosad and
deltamethrin with 100 per cent mortality followed by karanj oil (91.33). Eucalyptus oil
which recorded 76.67 per cent mortality was the next best treatment while soyabean oil
(68.67%) and sesame oil (66.00) were found to be least effective. The adult mortality of
C. chinensis in seeds treated with grain protectants clearly showed the superior
performance of chemical treatments over vegetable oils. Among the oils, karanj oil
caused maximum mortality (82.67%) at 24 hours after treatment by recording a total
mortality of 91.33 per cent after 7 days of treatment indicating that chemical protectants
were more toxic to the adults than the oils.
23
Khaire et al. (1992) recorded the efficacy of ten vegetable oils viz. sunflower,
castor, mustard, safflower, palm, groundnut, sesame, neem, karanj and maize each
applied at rates of 5, 7.5 and 10 ml/kg of grain (0.5, 0.75 and 1% v/w concentration) as
grain protectants of pigeon pea against C. chinensis. Effects on progeny emergence, loss
in grain weight and germination up to 100 days after treatment were measured. Adult
emergence was completely prevented by karanj oil at 0.75 and 1per cent and neem oil at
all levels up to 100 days. No emergence of adults occurred up to 66 days with castor oil
at 0.75 and 1 per cent levels. Minimum grain loss was noted with castor, mustard and
groundnut oils at the 1 per cent level up to 100 days after treatment.
Palm and coconut oils at 4 ml/kg were the most effective protectants of chick-pea
seeds against C. chinensis for 3 months of storage, followed by groundnut, rapeseed and
mustard oils. Sesame, sunflower and soybean oils were considered inferior to the others
(Singh et al., 1990). Neem seed oil showed 100 per cent control of C. chinensis for 5
months when applied at 10 ml/kg-1 (Das, 1987).
24
Chapter III
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
25
Chapter III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used and the methods employed under the present investigations
were designed as per the objectives of the experiments. The layout of the experiment
including design, procedures and observations recorded in the trials are summarized
below:
1. Location and season
The experiments were conducted at post Graduate Laboratory, Department of
Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi- Jharkhand from 01, March, 2018 to
September, 2018 under laboratory conditions.
2. Climate and weather condition
Ranchi is geographically located at 23º 17' N latitude and 82º 19' E longitude at 625
meter above the MSL, has a semi-arid and subtropical climate with extremes of weather
conditions. The average annual rainfall is about 12.00mm, most of which is received
during kharif season i.e. from June to September. Weekly metrological data on
temperature, rainfall and relative humidity recorded at the meteorological observatory
during the time of experimentation, were obtained from the Department of Agro-
Meteorology and Environment Science, B.A.U., Ranchi.
3. Details of experiment
As per the title, the present study includes two aspects
(i) Biology of pulse beetle, and
(ii) Eco-friendly management of pulse beetle infesting field pea in storage
(i) Biological studies of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions
The biological studies of pulse beetle were conducted from March, 2018 to
September, 2018 under laboratory conditions at Post Graduate Laboratory, Department of
Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi-Jharkhand. The experiment was
conducted under maximum (39 ºC) and minimum (12.5 ºC) temperature and maximum
(90.00) and minimum (33.70) per cent relative humidity. The biology study of pulse
beetle was conducted in three generations whose details are furnished below.
26
i. First generation was conducted from 01, March, up to 20, April, 2018.
ii. Second generation was conducted from 25, April up to 15, June, 2018.
iii. Third generation was conducted from 20, June up to 10, August, 2018.
Under biology of pulse beetle, the following observations were recorded.
6. Egg laying fecundity (No.)
7. Egg hatching ( % )
8. Larval + pupal duration (days)
9. Adult longevity (days)
a. Loss in weight (g) of the pea grains after 30, 60 and 90 days after
release of adults
b. Per cent seed damage on counting basis after 30, 60 and 90 days
after release of adults
c. Weight of frass.
3.1.1 Collection of field pea seeds

Disinfested seeds of the two varieties of Pisum sativum, HUDP 15 which is
having yellow colour and DDR 23 which is having green colour were collected from
pulse breeder. On the basis of counting, 190 disinfested field pea seeds that were equal to
50 g on weight basis were placed for both biology and management studies against pulse
beetle in plastic container/jar (Plate 1 & 2).
3.1.2 Source and Collecting of test insect
Adult of pulse beetles were collected from the pulse godown of Birsa Agricultural
University, the insect species was confirmed as C. chinensis as per the literature of Raina
(1970). The color of insect is grayish brown. The male beetle was smaller in size than the
female beetle. Male have comparatively shorter abdomen and the dorsal side of the
terminal segment was sharply curved downwards. In contrast, the female has
comparatively longer abdomen and the dorsal side of the terminal segment was slightly
27
bend downwards. The male beetle has pectinate antennae curved towards each other with
elongate and oblong apical segment but the female beetle possessed serrate antennae with
somewhat bluntly round and ovate apical segment (Plate 8).
3.1.3 Rearing and maintenance of the culture of test insect
The pulse beetles collected from the pulse godown were maintained in a big sized
jar containing field pea grains. The jar was then covered with a muslin cloth and allowed
for free mating and oviposition by the beetles. The parent beetles were removed and the
grains containing eggs were left in that container. It was closed with muslin cloth and tied
with a rubber band. This could provide aeration and prevent the escape of pulse beetles
when emerged. Rearing of the insects was continued throughout the trial period. After
culturing and raising the population of insects, five pairs of fresh emerged adult pulse
beetle released to plastic container/jar, in which we had kept 50 g of field pea seeds for
investigation (Plate 3).
3.1.4 Materials
Chosen (500 ml liquid form or 8 × 9 cm) plastic container/jar for this experiment
to study biology and management practices of pulse beetle. For biology, both varieties,
HUDP 15 and DDR 23 were replicated 48 times along with 50 g of disinfested field pea
seeds (Plate 4).
3.1.5 Seed damage by pulse beetle
For analyzing the damage caused by pulse beetles in field pea seeds, the total number of
holed seeds and total number of seeds were counted in each treatment. The observations
were recorded at first, second and third generations after the release of the adults. The per
cent seed damage was finally calculated by the formula:
Number of holed grains in the container

Per cent damages = × 100
Total No. of grains
28
3.1.6 Weight loss of field pea seeds by pulse beetle
The weight loss in the seed was calculated by subtracting the final weight from the initial
weight with help the following formula:
Loss in weight (g) = Initial seed weight – final seed weight
3.1.7 Some other formula which used for calculation of observations
Total number of eggs/replication

Fecundity =
Total number of female/replication
Total number of hatched eggs
Eggs hatchability % = × 100
Total number of laid eggs/female
Larval + pupal period = MDP – Oviposition period.
Adult longevity = Total life cycle – Larval + pupal period – incubation period
Number of adult emerged

Adult emerged % = × 100
Total No. of eggs
(ii) Management trails of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions by the
application of edible and non-edible oils
To find out the efficacies of various plant oils against the pulse beetles infesting
field pea , experiment was conducted during 15, August up to end of September, 2018 in
the Department of Agricultural Entomology under Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi.
Altogether seven plant oils were used for the experiment. Observations were recorded on
various parameters as below.
1. Adult mortality after 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours of treatment.
2. Number of adults emerged after 45 days of treatment.
a. Loss in weight (g) of the pea grains after 45 DAT.
29
b. Per cent seed damage on counting basis after 45 DAT.
c. Weight of frass 45 DAT.
The management studies of pulse beetle were conducted under laboratory conditions at
Post Graduate Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University,
Ranchi. The experiment was conducted under maximum (39 ºC ) and minimum (12.5 ºC)
temperature and maximum (90.00) and minimum (33.70) per cent relative humidity.
Without the procedures and materials which were followed for biology study of pulse
beetle, some further techniques and materials were also followed for management studies
of pulse beetle as following.
3.2.1 Technical Program
Design : Factorial Complete Randomized Design
Replications : 3
Factors : 3
i. Oil : 7
Details of the oil treatments (plate 5)

Treatment Scientific Name
T1 Mustard oil Brassica juncea
T2 Sunflower oil Helianthus annuus
T3 Soybean oil Glycine max
T4 Coconut oil Cocos nucifera
T5 Castor oil Ricinus communis
T6 Neem oil Azadirachta indica
T7 Karanj oil Millettia pinnata
ii. Concentration of the oil: 3 levels (2ml, 3ml and 5ml/kg of seed)
iii. Variety : 2 (HUDP 15 and DDR 23)
30
3.2.2 Seed treatment
The present investigation was conducted in one succession. The duration of the
succession was of 45 days. Freshly treated seed was used to evaluate the toxic effect of
the seven different plant oils against pulse beetles up to 45 days after treatment. Three
concentrations of oils, viz., 2ml, 3ml and 5ml/ kg of seed were tested for the experiment.
For this, a quantity of 0.10, 0.15 and 0.25 ml of each neem, castor, karanj, mustard,
coconut, sunflower and soybean oil were taken out separately from the bottle with the
help of a syringe and mixed homogeneously by proper shaking with 50 g of undamaged
field pea grains. Three replicates of 50 gm seeds of each treatment and concentration
were measured with the help of a sensitive balance and then transferred separately into
500 ml plastic jars. Five pairs of freshly emerged beetles were separated from the culture.
The mouth of each of the jars was covered with a piece of thin muslin cloth which was
held tightly in position by a rubber band. In similar process five pairs of freshly emerged
adults were introduced into three jars containing untreated seed which served as the
control. The succession continued up to 45 days and the necessary observations were
recorded during the period.
3.2.3 Effect of oils on adult mortality
The total count of dead and alive adults was recorded up to 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours
after the introducing of adults in the succession. This was done to investigate the per cent
adult mortality after the release of adults. Every day the dead adults of pulse beetles were
discarded while live insects were allowed to remain in the jars in order to allow them for
oviposition. The cumulative parental mortality up to 240 hours or 10 days after the
introducing of parent beetles was recorded and converted into percentage by the
following formula:
Total number of adults died

Per cent adult mortality = × 100
Total number of adults introduced
31
Plate 1. Healthy seed of HUDP 15 variety
Plate 2. Healthy seed of DDR 23 variety
32
Plate 3. Stock culture sample of pulse beetle
Plate 4.500 ml plastic containers/jars were chosen for the experiment
33
Plate 5. Edible and non-edible oils sample
34
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
35
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Pulses occupy a very important position in omardietory component but are

subjected to the ravages of several insect and non-insect pests causing considerable losses
to the grains and seeds of these crops. Pulses are attacked by several pests both under
field and storage conditions but the pulse beetle (Callosobruchus spp.) are considered to
be the most destructive.
In order to study the biology of C. chinensis infesting field pea and also to
develop eco-friendly management practices against this dreaded pest, laboratory
experiments were carried out during 2018 at the Post Graduate Laboratory, Department
of Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi.
To leave a comprehensive idea of the outcome of the experiments carried out, the
observational data collected have been statistically analyzed, arranged and discussed
critically and also compared with the previous works done by various researchers in
subsequent page.
According to the pest attack, one of these pests is pulse beetle. Pulse beetle can
attack grain legumes during pre and post harvest stages all over the world and can cause
considerable losses to the quality and quantity of pulses. The insect cause losses in
weight of grain, decreases germination potential diminish the market as well as
nutritional value of the pulses. Thus, in the present investigation an attempt was made to
study biology and eco-friendly management of pulse beetle through applying of edible
and non-edible oils on two varieties of field pea. For biology study of pulse beetle, placed
50.00 g of disinfested seeds separately in plastic containers/jars and replicated 24 times
and released 5 pairs of fresh emerged pulse beetle from the made stock culture by myself
to the containers/jars. The experiment was carried out from the month of July 2018 and
continued up to beginning of first week of the month of November 2018 under laboratory
conditions. The temperature during the experiment was maximum 39.0 ºC and minimum
temperature was 12.5 ºC to. The relative humidity was maximum 95 per cent and
36
minimum was 39 per cent. The data had recorded within three successful generations for
Egg laying (fecundity) on the numbering basis, Egg hatching on per cent basis, Larval +
pupal duration on the days basis, Adult longevity on the days basis and Extent of damage
in terms of loss in weight (g); Per cent seed damaged on number basis and frass weight
on (g) basis, needful observations.
4.1 Experimental finding of Biological studies of pulse beetle
The biology studies of pulse beetle were conducted for the objectives have been
presented as under
4.1.1 Fecundity/Oviposition of pulse beetle
4.1.2 Larval + pupal period and adult longevity of pulse beetle
4.1.3 Eggs hatchability
4.1.4 Determination of Damage caused by pulse beetle
37
4.1.1 Fecundity/Oviposition of pulse beetle
The date recorded on the fecundity of the pulse beetle on both varieties for three
generations have been presented in the table 1. Additionally to the fecundity, showed the
biological parameters (Incubation period, larval + pupal period, adult longevity, pre-
oviposition, oviposition, post-oviposition, male and female longevity and total life cycle
ranges) (table 2a, 2b and 2c).
Table 1. Fecundity of pulse beetle (C. chinensis) on seeds of field pea in storage
No. of eggs laid by single female
Variety Generation
1st 2nd 3rd Mean
HUDP 15 65.60 74.20 79.80 73.20a
(8.59)* (9.11) (9.43) (9.05)
DDR 23 69.80 68.00 70.00 69.26ab
(8.85) (8.74) (8.86) (8.82)
SEm. (±) 2.40 1.37 1.47 -
C.D. (at 5%) 7.10 5.52 4.35 -
CV (%) 6.14 3.33 3.58 -
*Figures in parentheses are √X+0.5 transformed values
Fecundity of a single female, irrespective of varieties and generations, varied

from 65.60 to 79.80.Significantly differences were obtained in all the three generations
between both the varieties, the higher being in HUDP 15. Highest fecundity values were
noticed in t he third generation. Less number of eggs was deposited on the variety, DDR
23. Earlier, Raina (1970) conducted experiment on the biology of Callosobruchus
chinensis (L.) in laboratory on seeds of mung (Phaseolus aureus) at 30°C temperature
and 70 per cent R.H. He observed that the average of 78 eggs/female was laid. Ahmad et
al. (2018) studied biology of pulse beetle in different pulses. They reported highest
(74.40) eggs were laid on chickpea, followed by mungbean (61.00), lentil (57.20) and
blackgram (19.60). So the present findings are more or less inconformity with the
findings of Raina (1970) and Ahmad et al. (2018).
38
Plate 6.Eggs of Pulse beetle on HUDP 15 variety seed
39
79.8
74.2
80 69.8 70
68
65.6
70
60
HUDP 15
50
DDR 23
40
30
20
10
0
1st Gne. 2nd Gen. 3rd Gen.
4.1.2 Larval + pupal period and adult longevity of pulse beetle
The data pertaining to the duration taken for different developmental stages in the
life cycle of C. chinensis in three generations have been presented in Table 2a, 2b and 2c,
respectively. Depending upon the ambient weather conditions in different months, the
mean incubation period was 5.50±0.50 days in the first and third and4.00±1.00 days in
the second generations on the HUDP 15 variety of field pea. While the incubation period
was recorded with mean of 5.50±1.50 days in the first generation, 4.50±0.50 days in the
second generation and 5.00±1.00 days in the third generation on DDR 23 variety of field
pea. Sahoo and Chandrakar (2013) reported the maximum days of incubation period
(5.39 to 8.13 days).
The Table 2a, 2b & 2c also revealed that, the pre-oviposition period was ranged
from 12 to 14 hours with mean of 13.00±1.00 hours in the first generation, 4 – 10 hours
with mean of 7.00±3.00 hours in the second generation and 4 – 5 hours with mean of
40
4.5±0.50 hours in the third generation on HUDP 15 variety while it was ranged from 8 to
9 hours with mean of 8.50±0.50 hours in the first generation, 6 – 7 hours with mean of
6.50±0.50 hours in the second generation and 4 – 6 hours with mean of 5.00±1.00 hours
in the third generation on DDR 23 variety.
The oviposition period was ranged from 4 – 5 days with mean of 4.5±0.50 days in
the first generation, 2 – 4days with mean of 3.00±1.00days in the second generation and
from 4 – 5 days with mean of 4.50±0.50 days in the third generation on the HUDP 15
variety. On other hand, the oviposition period was ranged from 3 – 6 days with mean of
4.50±1.50 days in the first, 3 – 4 days with mean of 3.50±0.50 days in the second
generation and 3 – 5 days with mean of 4.00±1.00 days in the third generation on DDR
23 variety of field pea respectively. Rina Kumari (2000) reported the egg/oviposition
period ranged from 4 to 5 days. Mishra et al. (2013) reported that, the egg period of
Callosobruchus chinensis varied from 5.21 to 6.33 days in different treatments as against
5.67 days in untreated. The minimum time of 5.21 days were taken for hatching in
Cymbopogon citratus treated green gram whereas, 6.33 days were taken on Aeglem
armelos treated seeds.
The post-oviposition period ranged from 4 – 7 days with mean of 5.50±1.50 days
in the first generation, 2 – 3 days with mean of 2.50±0.50 days in the second generation
and 3 – 4 days with mean of 3.50±0.50 days in the third generation on HUDP 15 variety,
but it was ranged from 4 – 6 days with mean of 5.00±1.00 days in the first generation, 3 –
4 days with mean of 3.50±0.50 days in the second generation and 2 – 3 days with mean
of 2.50±0.50 days in the third generation on DDR 23 variety. According to Chakraborty
et al. (2015), the post-oviposition mean period was and 3.65 days, respectively in first
generation while this parameter recorded as 4.15 days, respectively in second generation.
After hatching, the larvae started making holes into the grain through feeding
inwardly without breaking the egg sheath/egg shell. The larval + pupal period was ranged
from 20 – 35 days with mean of 27.50±7.50 days in the first generation, 21 – 40 days
with mean of 30.50±9.50 days in the second generation and 18 – 24 days with mean of
21.00±3.00 days in the third generation on the HUDP 15 variety. The corresponding
41
values on DDR 23 variety were 20 – 38 days with mean of 29.00±9.00 days, 23 – 31 days
with mean of 27.00±4.00 days and 19 – 39 days with mean of 29.00±10.00 days,
respectively. . Mishra et al. (2013) reported that, the larvae and pupae completed their
development in 22 days in untreated green gram.
The Tables further state that the highest adult longevity was recorded on HUDP
15 variety in the first and third generations, it was ranged from 8 - 10 days with mean of
9.00±1.00 days, while the adult longevity was observed from 10 - 12 days with mean of
11.00±1.00 days on the DDR 23 variety in the first generation as the highest value. The
adult longevity ranged was recorded from 5 – 8 days with mean of 6.50±1.50 days in the
second generation on HUDP 15 variety. But the adult longevity ranged was recorded
from 7 – 9 days with mean of 8.00±1.00 days in the second and from 6 – 9 days with
mean of 7.50±1.50 days in the third generation respectively. Hosamani et al. (2018)
reported that the, adult longevity varied from 7 to 20 days on different pulses seeds.
Maximum adult longevity was observed on red gram (12±0.45 days) followed by
greengram (10±0.69days) and cowpea (9±0.30) and chickpea (9±0.38). In cowpea and
chickpea seeds, the adult longevity remained at pat. Mean shortest duration of adult
longevity was recorded on moth bean. The longevity of male and female was different to
each others.
Female longevity was observed more than male longevity. The male longevity
recorded was from 4 – 7 days with mean of 5.50±1.50 days in the first and second
generations and 6 – 9 days with mean of 7.50±1.50 days in the third generation on HUDP
15 variety of field pea, and 6.50 – 10 days with mean of 8.25±1.75 days, 5 – 9 days with
mean of 7.00±2.00 days and 4 – 7 days with mean of 5.50±1.50 days in the first, second
and third generations were observed on DDR 23 variety of field pea.
The longevity of female ranged from 8 – 10 days with mean of 9.00±1.00 days in
the first and third generations and from 5 – 8 days with mean of 6.50±1.50 days in the
second generation on HUDP 15 variety, while the corresponding values for DDR 23
variety were ranged 10 – 12 days with mean 11.00±1.00 days, 7 – 9 days with mean of
8.00±1.00 days and 6 – 9 days with mean of 7.50±1.50 days in the first second and third
42
generations, respectively (Table 2a, 2b & 2c). Earlier, Varma and Anandhi (2010)
reported that longevity of adults for males ranged 9-14 with average of 11.00±1.87 days
and for females was ranged 9-12 days with an average of 9.6±1.14 days. Almost similar
observations of male and female longevity as 9.76 and 9.44 days were also reported by
Raina (1970). The present findings are more or less in accordance with them.
As the others biological parameters varied on different pulses crops, thus the total
life cycle is also vary on different pulses varieties. On HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the
total life cycle ranged from 32 – 50 days with mean of 41.00±9.00 days in the first, 28 –
48 days with mean of 38.00±10.00 days in second and 30 – 39 days with mean of
34.5±4.50 days in third generation. But it was ranged from 33 – 56 days with mean of
44.50±11.50 days in first, 33 – 44 days with mean of 38.5±5.50 days in second and 28 –
53 days with mean of 40.50±12.50 days in the third generation on DDR 23 variety of
field. According to Hosamani et al. (2018), the average duration of life cycle of C.
chinensis on various pulses varied significantly. The minimum duration of the life cycle
was recorded in cowpea 29±2.30 days followed by black gram (30±2.34 days). The
longest duration of the life cycle was recorded in red gram (39±3.65) days followed by
bengal gram (34±2.47days) and horse gram (32±1.70 days). The present findings are
almost in conformity with the findings of Hosamani et al. (2018).
43
Table 2a. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of C. chinensis
in the first generation
No. of Duration in days in under mentioned field pea varieties
individual HUDP 15 DDR 23
Stages
observed Range Average ± Range Average ±
S.D. S.D.
Incubation period 50 5.00 – 6.00 5.50±0.50 4.00 – 7.00 5.50±0.50
Pre-oviposition 30 12.00 – 14.00 13.00±1.00 8.00 – 9.00 8.50±0.50
period (hours)
Oviposition period 30 4.00 – 5.00 4.50±0.50 3.00 – 6.00 4.50±1.50
Post-oviposition 30 4.00 – 7.00 5.50±1.50 4.00 – 6.00 5.00±1.00
period
Larval + pupal 50 20.00 – 35.00 27.50±7.50 20.00 – 38.00 29.00±9.00
period
Adult longevity 30 8.00 – 10.00 8.00±2.00 10.00 – 12.00 11.00±1.00
Adult longevity of 30 4.00 – 7.00 5.50±1.50 6.50 – 10.00 8.25±1.75
male
female
Total life cycle* 25 32.50 – 50.00 41.25±8.75 33.00 – 56.00 44.50±11.50
*Total life cycle (Days) = Oviposition period + Larval period + pupal period + Adult
longevity
44
Table 2b. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of C. chinensis
in the second generation
Stages
S.D. S.D.
Pre-oviposition 30 4.00 – 10.00 7.00±3.00 6.00 – 7.00 6.50±0.50
period (hours)
period
Larval + pupal 50 21.00 – 40.00 30.50±9.50 23.00 – 31.00 27.00±4.00
period
Adult longevity 30 5.00 – 8.00 6.50±1.50 7.00 – 9.00 8.00±1.00
male
female
Total life cycle* 25 28.00 – 48.00 38.00±10.00 33.00 – 44.00 38.50±5.50
*Total life cycle (Days) = Oviposition period+ Larval period + pupal period + Adult
longevity
45
Table 2c. Duration of different developmental stages in the life cycle of C. chinensis
in the third generation
Stages
S.D. S.D.
Pre-oviposition 30 4.00 – 5.00 4.50±0.50 4.00 – 6.00 5.00±1.00
period (hours)
period
Larval + pupal 50 18.00 – 24.00 21.00±3.00 19.00 – 39.00 29.00±10.00
period
Adult longevity 30 8.00 – 10.00 9.00±1.00 6.00 – 9.00 7.50±1.50
male
female
Total life cycle* 25 30.00 – 39.00 34.50±4.50 28.00 – 53.00 40.50±12.50
*Total life cycle (Days) = Oviposition period+ Larval period + pupal period + Adult
longevity
46
4.1.3 Eggs hatchability
The results presented in Table 3a. revealed that all the eggs laid were not hatched.
Table 3a. Hatchability of eggs and sex ratio of C. chinensis on HUDP 15 variety of
field pea during three generations
Hatchability (%) on HUDP 15 variety
Per cent Sex ratio **

No. of female Generati No. of eggs No. of eggs
hatchability (%)
observed on observed hatched*
** (%) Male Female
st
1 150.00 109.00 72.66 60.00 40.00
(12.74) (10.94) (58.44) (50.77) (39.23)
2nd 150.00 111.00 74.00 50.00 50.00
(12.74) (11.03) (59.34) (45.00) (45.00)
5 females
3rd 150.00 82.00 54.66 48.00 52.00
(12.74) (9.55) (47.64) (43.85) (46.15)
Mean 150.00 101.00 67.10 52.66 47.33
(12.74) (10.54) (55.00) (46.49) (43.45)
SEm. (±) - - 2.08 1.44 0.88 1.05
C.D. (at 5%) - - 7.34 5.09 3.11 3.71
CV (%) - - 3.58 3.72 2.90 3.85
**Figures in parentheses are √arcsine transformed values
47
Plate 7. Larvae of pulse beetle
Plate 8. Adult male and female of pulse beetle
48
The highest hatching percentage rate (74 %) with sex developmental ratio of
50.00 male and 50.00 female was recorded in the second generation on the variety HUDP
15, but it was not significantly different with first generation (72.66 %) with 60.00 male
and 40.00 females. The lowest (54.66 %) hatchability of eggs was recorded in third
generation with 48:52 ratios of male: female.
On DDR 23 a green variety of field pea, the hatchability of eggs was quite
different from the yellow variety, HUDP 15. Less number of eggs was hatched on DDR
23 variety which ranged from 47.33 to 55.33 per cent in different generations. Unlike the
variety HUDP 15, the least hatchability 47.33 per cent was recorded in second
generation. The ratios of male: female in three different generations were 54:46, 49:51
and 49:51, respectively. Though, no reference was available in relation to hatchability on
field pea but Islam et al. (2007) reported that, the egg-hatching was significantly reduced
in black grams (59.55%) followed by Bengal grams (47.44%), green peas (35.99%) and
lentils (32.22%) in restricted access.
Table 3b. Hatchability of eggs and sex ratio of C. chinensis on DDR 23 variety
of field pea during three generations
Hatchability (%) per cent on DDR 23 variety
No. of Per cent Sex ratio**

Generati No. of eggs No. of eggs
female hatchability (%)
on observed hatched*
observed ** (%) Male Female
1st 150.00 71.00bc 52.00ab 54.00a 46.00ab
(12.74) (8.92) (46.15) (47.29) (42.71)
2nd 150.00 78.00ab 47.33bc 49.00ab 51.00a
(12.74) (9.33) (43.45) (44.43) (45.57)
5 females
3rd 150.00 83.00a 55.33a 49.00abc 51.00a
(12.74) (9.61) (48.04) (44.43) (45.57)
Mean 150.00 77.33 51.55 50.66 49.33
(12.74) (9.29) (45.86) (45.34) (44.60)
SEm. (±) - - 1.59 2.57 0.81 1.00
C.D. (at 5%) - - 5.63 7.65 2.88 3.52
CV (%) - - 3.58 8.65 2.79 3.51
49
4.1.4 Infestation of field pea by pulse beetle
To determine the damage of pulse beetle C. chinensis, the extent of damage was
determined in terms of loss in weight on the basis of (g) and per cent (%) seed/grain
damaged on number basis during first, second and third (30, 60 and 90 estimated days)
generations. The number of grains in a 50 g sample from each of the two selected
varieties of field pea was counted. The experiment was set up on 1st March, 2018 and
terminated on 10th August, 2018 under normal room conditions. The average maximum
and minimum temperature were 39 and 12.5ºC, respectively and minimum and maximum
relative humidity was 33.70 and 90.00 per cent. All the dead insects were removed from
the containers after their naturally mortality and the seeds/grains were kept for 30, 60,
and 90 estimated days (first, second and third generations) to observe and record the
damages. The amount of damage was converted from number basis into percentage with
the following standard formula.
Total no. of seeds − No. of sound gains/seeds

Damage % = × 100
Total no. of grains/seeds
The loss in weight was calculated by using the following formula
Loss in weight (g) = Initial seed weight – final seed weight
Frass values were also determined for each generation after the completion of life
cycle of pulse beetle. The data recorded were subjected to statistical analysis.
The results showed that, the per cent damage was 44.21 per cent in the first
generation, while it was40.52 per cent in second generation and 45.78 per cent in third
generation on the HUDP 15 variety of field pea. The damage values in DDR 23 were
39.47, 41.57 and 40.52 per cent in the first, second and third generations, respectively
(Table 4a).
50
The data further shows that per cent damage in third generation (45.78 %) on
HUDP 15 variety was significantly higher than all the other values of both varieties.
There was significant difference in the damage recorded in all the three generations of
HUDP 15 variety. But on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the result did not differ
significantly. The lowest damage of 39.47 per cent was recorded in first generation on
the DDR 23 variety of field pea respectively. Qazi (2007) recorded damage by pulse
beetle in black bean, cowpea, white gram, black gram, pea, lentil, soybean and green
mung as 0.00, 51.04, 29.98, 59.30, 1.70, 0.00, 0.00 and 79.59 per cent, respectively.
51
Table 4a. Infestation of field pea by C. chinensis in HUDP 15 variety of field pea in different generations
Total number of Weight of Number of Grain Loss in

Number of Frass weight*
seeds/grains on seeds/grains* damaged damaged** weight of
Generations healthy grains* (g)
counting basis* (g) grains * (%) grains* (g)
1st 190.00 50.00 84.00ab 44.21ab 106.00b 8.70a 2.29abc

(14.28) (7.57) (9.66) (41.67) (10.79) (2.34) (2.01)
2nd 190.00 50.00 77.00c 40.52c 113.00a 6.22bc 2.66a
(14.28) (7.57) (9.27) (39.52) (11.13) (2.29) (2.13)
3rd 190.00 50.00 87.00a 45.78a 103.00c 6.30b 2.43ab
(14.28) (7.57) (9.82) (42.53) (10.64) (2.23) (2.05)
Mean 190.00 50.00 82.66 43.51 107.33 7.07 2.46
(14.28) (7.57) (9.59) (41.27) (10.86) (2.28) (2.06)
SEm. (±) - - 0.57 0.64 1.24 0.06 0.07
C.D. (at 5%) - - 2.03 2.26 4.40 0.23 0.21
CV (%) - - 1.21 2.55 2.01 1.65 4.32
52
Table 4b. Infestation of field pea by C. chinensis in DDR 23 variety of field pea in different generations
Total number of Weight of Number of Grain Loss in

Number of Frass weight*
seeds/grains on seeds/grains* damaged damaged** weight of
Generations healthy grains* (g)
counting basis* (g) grains* (%) grains* (g)
1st 190.00 50.00 75.00bc 39.47abc 115.00a 7.52ab 2.04abc
(14.28) (7.57) (9.16) (38.88) (11.22) (2.19) (1.92)
2nd 190.00 50.00 79.00a 41.57a 111.00bc 5.62bc 2.09a
(14.28) (7.57) (9.38) (40.11) (11.03) (2.26) (1.94)
3rd 190.00 50.00 77.00ab 40.52ab 113.00ab 8.00a 2.07ab
(14.28) (7.57) (9.27) (39.52) (11.13) (2.17) (1.93)
Mean 190.00 50.00 77.00 40.52 113.00 7.04 2.06
(14.28) (7.57) (9.27) (39.52) (11.13) (2.20) (1.93)
SEm. (±) - - 0.66 0.40 0.81 0.09 0.01
C.D. (at 5%) - - 2.35 1.43 2.88 0.33 0.03
CV (%) - - 1.50 1.73 1.25 2.32 0.85
53
It can be further seen that on HUDP 15 variety, the highest (8.70g) loss in weight
was observed in the first generation followed by third generation (6.30g) and in the
second generation (6.22g). On DDR 23 variety of field pea, the grain weight loss varied
from 5.62g to 8.00g, the lowest being in second generation followed by in the first
generation (7.52g) and in the third generation the weight loss was maximum (8.00g).
Earlier, Venkatesham et al. (2015) found that the losses caused to chickpea seeds by
pulse beetle ranged from 7.87 to 4.19 per cent.
Frass weight value was also recorded on both varieties of field pea. On HUDP 15
variety, the highest (2.66 g) frass value was recorded in second generation, followed by
third generation (2.43 g) and first generation (2.29 g). On other hand the DDR 23 variety
frass weight value was lower than HUDP 15. The highest (2.09g)frass weight was
recorded in the second generation followed by third and first generations where the frass
weight values were 2.07g and 2.04g, respectively. No previous report has been found on
frass weight.
54
45.78
46
45 44.21
44
43 41.57
42 HUDP 15
40.52 40.52
41 DDR 23
39.47
40
39
38
37
36
1st Gen. 2nd Gen. 3rd Gen.
8g
7.52g
8
6.7g
7 6.22g 6.3g
5.62g
6
HUDP 15
5
DDR 23
4
0
55
3 2.66 g
2.43 g
2.29 g
2.5
2.09 g 2.07 g
2.04 g
2
HUDP 15
1.5 DDR 23
0.5
0
56
Plate 9. HUDP 15 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetles
Plate 10. DDR 23 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetle
57
4.2 Management trial of pulse beetle using edible and non-edible oils on field pea in
storage conditions
It was the second object of this experiment. For management of pulse beetle, the
experiment was carried out from August, 2018 to September, 2018 under laboratory
conditions in the Department of Entomology, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke,
Ranchi.
The procedure followed for management studies are follows.
4.2.1 Rearing of the test insect
The fresh pulse beetle had collected from local market with infested seed and also
collected from BAU godowns of pulses at BAU campus. The pulse beetle had collected
for preparing of stock culture. After arising of the culture of pulse beetle, 5 pairs of
freshly emerged adult insects were released to each container/jar and studied for one
generation.
4.2.2 Preparation of test plant materials
In management trial some edible and non-edible oils were used which are as
follows.
Treatment Scientific Name Dosages Replications

T1 Mustard oil Brassica juncea 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T2 Sunflower oil Helianthus annuus 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T3 Soybean oil Glycine max 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T4 Coconut oil Cocosnucifera 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T5 Castor oil Ricinuscommunis 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T6 Neem oil Azadirachtaindica 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
T7 Karanj oil Millettiapinnata 2, 3 and 5 ml/kg seed Thrice
The oils were prepared and collected from nearby and local market of Ranchi city.
Main purpose of using the plant oils in this experiment was as seed/grain protectants,
58
studying the determination of adult mortality after 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours of
application of treatment, adult emerging 45 DAT, determination of the damage caused by
pulse beetle to field pea in terms of per cent seed damaged on number basis 45 DAT, loss
in weight on (g) basis and determining extract, frass, and dead heart value.
4.2.3 Preparation of test seed
HUDP 15 and DDR 23 varieties of Pisum sativum of pulses were used in this
experiment. The pea varieties seeds/grains were collected from nearby and local market.
50 g of healthy seeds were placed in (8×9 cm, 500ml) plastic container/jar, thereafter, 5
pairs of freshly emerged adult insects of pulse beetle were released to each jar.
4.2.4 Execution of the experiment
The experiment had conducted in CRD design with 7+1 treatment and 3
replications.
4.2.5 Counting per cent grain infestation on number basis
The per cent infestation of each variety was calculated by separating healthy and
damaged grains (with holes and without holes) from the container and was used for per
cent infestation calculating using the formula
Total No. of seeds − sound seed

Damage % = × 100
Total No. of seed
4.2.6 Management of pulse beetle by the application of different edible and non-
edible oils
The study was conducted to find out the efficacy of different edible and non-
edible oils for managing of pulse beetle.
The variations among the oils with doses were assessed in terms of adult mortality
of pulse beetle after 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours of application, number of adults emerged
59
after at 45 DAT, extent of damage at 45 DAT, loss in weight 45 DAT and weight of frass
at 45 DAT. The data recorded were subjected to statistical analysis and the results were
explained according. The results of effect of edible and non-edible oils tested under the
present investigation have been presented under the following sub heads.
4.2.6.1 Adult mortality on freshly treated seeds after 24 hours of treatment
4.2.6.5 Adult of pulse beetle emerging out at 45 DAT
4.2.6.6 Effect of different treatments on seed damage at 45 DAT
4.2.6.7 Effect of different treatments on loss in weight (g) 45 DAT
4.2.6.8 Weight of frass on (g) basis 45 DAT in different treatments

The jars containing the treated seed ware observed after 24 hours of treatment for
the parental mortality. The dead adults were discarded after 24 hours from jars. The
cumulative parental mortality (%) after 24 hours has been presented in the table 5. The
mortality of the released adults was recorded after mentioned period at all the three doses.
The results thus obtained for three doses of oils have been graphically illustrated in the
fig. 5.
Observations on the bio-efficacy of different plant oils on the cumulative
mortality of adult of C. chinensis at 24 hours after treatment depicted in table 5 revealed
that irrespective of doses, all the oils (treatments) significantly brought about higher adult
mortality as compared to control. The adult mortality, in various oils, ranged from 0.00 to
6.66, 3.33 to 13.32 and 6.66 to 16.65 per cent on HUDP 15 variety and from 0.00 to
60
13.32, 3.33 to 16.66 and 9.99 to 23.33 per cent on DDR 23 variety of field pea at 2ml,
3ml and 5ml doses, respectively. The overall mean mortality for different oils tested on
HUDP 15 variety indicated that the highest (11.10 %) adult mortality was found with
castor and coconut oil and both the oils proved better in performance over rest of the oils.
Sunflower oil ranked second in efficacy where the mortality was recorded to be 8.88 per
cent on the same variety. The remaining oils also contributed higher mortality than the
control. Dose wise outcomes of various oils indicated that at 2ml dose, coconut oil
resulted in highest (6.66 %) mortality and were significantly superior over rest of the
treatments followed jointly by castor, neem, sunflower and karanj oil where the mortality
recorded to be 3.33 per cent. Mustard and soybean were showed 0.00 per cent adult
mortality on HUDP 15 variety at the 2ml dose. Similar trend in contact toxicity to adult
mortality was noticed in case of 3ml and 5ml doses also. The interaction between the
variety and dose, oil and dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly. In case of
DDR 23 variety, the overall mean mortality for different oils tested indicated that the
highest (17.17 %) adult mortality was found with castor oil and it was proved to be better
in performance over rest of the oils. Neem oil ranked second in efficacy where the
mortality was recorded to be 13.32 per cent on mentioned variety. The remaining oils
also contributed higher mortality than the control. The highest mortality of 13.32, 16.66
and 23.33 per cent was attained through castor oil in all the three doses of 2, 3 and 5ml/
kg seed, respectively. Dose wise outcome of various oils indicated that at 2ml/ kg dose,
castor oil resulted in highest (13.32 %) mortality and was significantly superior over rest
of the treatments followed jointly by sunflower, coconut, mustard and neem oils where
the mortality was 3.33 per cent. Karanj and soybean oils showed 0.00 per cent adult
mortality on DDR 23 variety at the 2ml dose. The interaction between the variety and
dose, oil and dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly (Fig. 5). Das (1987)
investigated and reported that palm and coconut oils at 4 ml/kg-1 were the most effective
protectants of chick-pea seeds against C. chinensis for 3 months of storage, followed by
groundnut, rapeseed and mustard oils. Sesame, sunflower and soybean oils were
considered inferior to the others (Singh et al., 1990). Neem seed oil showed 100 per cent
control of C. chinensis for 5 months when applied at 10 ml/kg seed. The per cent results
are more or less in conformity with the findings of above workers.
61
Table 5. Effect of various oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle up to 24 hours of treatment
Per cent adult mortality at mentioned dosage and variety
Sl. No. Treatment 2ml/ kg of seed 3ml/ kg of seed 5ml/ kg of seed Mean Mean
HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 ( HUDP 15) (DDR 23)
1 Neem oil 3.33 3.33 6.66 13.32 9.99 23.32 6.66c 13.32b
(10.47)* (10.47) (14.89) (21.39) (18.34) (28.86)
2 Castor oil 3.33 13.32 13.32 16.66 16.65 23.33 11.10a 17.77a
(10.47) (21.39) (21.39) (24.04) (24.08) (28.86)
3 Coconut oil 6.66 3.33 9.99 9.99 16.65 16.66 11.10a 10.00d
(14.89) (10.47) (18.34) (18.34) (24.04) (24.04)
4 Sunflower oil 3.33 6.66 6.66 10.00 16.65 16.66 8.88b 11.10c
(10.47) (14.89) (14.89) (18.44) (24.04) (24.04)
5 Karanj oil 3.33 0.00 3.32 6.66 6.66 16.66 4.43e 7.77e
(10.47) (0.00) (10.47) (14.89) (14.89) (24.04)
6 Soybean oil 0.00 0.00 6.66 3.33 9.99 9.99 5.55d 4.44f
(0.00) (0.00) (14.89) (10.47) (18.34) (18.34)
7 Mustard oil 0.00 3.33 3.33 6.66 9.99 13.32 4.44e 7.77e
(0.00) (10.47) (10.47) (14.89) (18.34) (21.39)
Mean 2.85 4.28 7.13 9.51 12.36 17.13
8 Untreated 2.77
control (9.81)
Variety Dose VXD Treatment VXT DXT VXDXT
S.Em. (±) 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.30
C.D. (at 5%) 0.18 0.22 0.32 0.34 0.49 0.60 0.85
CV (%) 8.10
*Figures in parentheses are √arcsine transformed values
62
25
20 HUDP 15, 2ml

HUDP 15, 3ml
HUDP 15, 5ml
15
DDR 23, 2ml
DDR 23, 3ml
10 DDR 23, 5ml
0
Neem Castor Coconut Sunflower Karanj Soybean Mustard Control
63
The jars containing the treated seed ware observed after 48 hours of treatment for
the parental mortality. The dead adults were discarded after 48 hours from jars. The
fig. 6.

mortality of adult of C. chinensis at 48 hours after treatment depicted in table 6 and fig. 6
revealed that irrespective of doses, all the oils (treatments) significantly brought about
higher adult mortality as compared to control. The adult mortality, in various oils, ranged
from 0.00 to 16.66, 6.66 to 23.32 and 9.99 to 29.99 per cent on HUDP 15 variety and
from 3.33 to 19.99, 10.00 to 33.32 and 16.65 to 36.66 per cent on DDR 23 variety of field
pea at 2ml, 3ml and 5ml doses, respectively. The overall mean mortality for different oils
tested indicated that the highest (23.32 %) adult mortality was found with neem oil that
proved better in performance over rest of the oils on HUDP 15 variety. Coconut oil
ranked second in efficacy where the mortality was recorded to be 17.77 per cent on
mentioned variety. The remaining oils also contributed higher mortality than the control.
The highest mortality of 16.66, 23.32 and 29.99 per cent was attained through neem oil at
2ml, 3ml and 5ml per kg seed, respectively. Dose wise outcomes of various oils indicated
that at 2ml dose, neem oils resulted in highest (16.66 %) mortality and was significantly
superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by castor and coconut oil where the
mortality was 9.99 per cent. Karanj, soybean and mustard oils ranked third in efficacy.
Similar trend in contact toxicity for adult mortality was noticed in case of 3ml and 5ml
doses also. The interaction between the variety and dose, oil and dose and variety, dose
and oils remained significantly. In case of DDR 23 variety, the overall mean mortality for
different oils tested indicated that the highest (25.54 %) adult mortality was found with
neem and coconut oils (25.54 %) and both the oils proved better in performance over rest
of the oils on DDR 23 variety. Castor oil ranked second in efficacy where the mortality
recorded was 23.32 per cent on mentioned variety. The remaining oils also contributed
64
higher mortality than the control. Dose wise results indicated that the highest mortality of
6.66, 33.32 and 36.66 per cent was obtained through neem oil and 19.99, 26.66 and 29.99
per cent through coconut oil in all the three doses, respectively. Dose wise outcomes of
various oils further indicated that at 2ml dose, coconut oil resulted in highest (19.99 %)
mortality and was significantly superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by
castor (16.65 %), sunflower (13.33 %), karanj (10.00 %), soybean and neem(6.66 %) oils
which were significantly different. Mustard oil showed lowest (3.33%) adult mortality on
DDR 23 variety at the same dose. Similar trend in contact toxicity to adults was noticed
in case of 3ml and 5ml doses also. The interaction between the variety and dose, oil and
dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly. Bajya et al. (2007) studied 3
vegetable oils, i.e. neem (Azadirachta indica), castor (Ricinus communis) and mustard
(Brassica juncea) at 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 ml/100 g seeds against pulse beetle. They observed
that suitable controls were used in all the experiments. The 3 vegetable oils at 0.4, 0.8 and
1.2 ml/100 g seeds caused adult mortality of pulse beetle in comparison to the control.
The adult mortality also increased with the increase in dose of each treatment. Neem oil
was the most effective in giving the maximum adult mortality (96.00%) at 1.2 ml/100 g
seeds, whereas, in the control no mortality was observed. The next best treatment was the
castor oil at 1.2 ml/100 g seeds, causing 84.00 per cent mortality of the pest.
65
HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 (HUDP 15) (DDR 23)
1 Neem oil 16.66 6.66 23.32 33.32 29.99 36.66 23.32a 25.54a
(24.04)* (14.89) (28.86) (35.24) (33.15) (37.23)
2 Castor oil 9.99 16.65 13.33 20.00 19.98 33.32 14.43c 23.32b
(18.34) (24.04) (21.39) (26.56) (26.49) (35.24)
3 Coconut oil 9.99 19.99 13.33 26.66 29.99 29.99 17.77b 25.54a
(18.34) (26.49) (21.39) (31.05) (33.15) (33.21)
4 Sunflower oil 0.00 13.33 19.99 19.94 23.32 23.32 14.43c 18.86c
(0.00) (21.39) (26.49) (26.49) (28.86) (28.86)
5 Karanj oil 3.33 10.00 6.66 13.32 13.33 19.98 7.77d 14.43d
(10.50) (18.44) (14.89) (21.39) (21.39) (26.49)
6 Soybean oil 3.33 6.66 6.66 10.00 13.32 16.65 7.77d 11.10e
(10.50) (14.89) (14.89) (18.44) (21.39) (24.04)
7 Mustard oil 3.33 3.33 6.66 13.32 9.99 19.98 6.66d 12.21e
(10.50) (10.47) (14.89) (21.39) (18.34) (26.49)
Mean 6.66 10.94 12.85 19.50 19.98 25.70
8 Untreated 5.00
control (12.92)
SEm. (±) 0.22 0.27 0.39 0.42 0.59 0.73 1.03
C.D. (at 5%) 0.63 0.78 NS 1.19 1.68 2.06 2.92
CV (%) 7.16
66
40
35
30 HUDP 15, 2ml

HUDP 15, 3ml
25
HUDP 15, 5ml
20 DDR 23, 2ml
DDR 23, 3ml
15
DDR 23, 5ml
10
0
Neem Castor Coconut Sunflower Karanj Soybean Mustard Contro
67
The jars containing the treated seed ware observed after 120 hours of treatment
for the parental mortality. The dead adults were discarded after 120 hours from jars. The
fig. 7.

26.66, 13.32 to 29.99 and 19.99 to 43.32 per cent on HUDP 15 variety and 10.00 to
3ml and 5ml doses, respectively. The overall mean mortality for different oils tested
indicated that the highest (33.32 %) adult mortality was found with neem oil that proved
better in performance over rest of the oils on HUDP 15 variety. castor and karanj oils
It was also established that with the increase in dose of oil there was an increase in adult
mortality. The highest mortality 26.66, 29.99 and 43.32 per cent was attained through
neem oil in all the three doses, respectively. Dose wise outcomes of various oils indicated
that at 2ml dose, neem oils resulted in highest (26.66 %) mortality and was significantly
superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by castor (23.32 %), coconut (19.98
%), soybean (19.98 %), karanj (16.65 %) and mustard (13.32 %) oils on HUDP 15
variety at the 2ml dose. Similar trend in contact toxicity to adult mortality was noticed in
case of 3ml and 5ml doses also. The interaction between the variety and dose, oil and
dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly. In case of DDR 23 variety, the
overall mean mortality for different oils tested indicated that the highest (31.88 %) adult
mortality was found with coconut oil that proved better in performance over rest of the
oils on DDR 23 variety. neem oil ranked second in efficacy where the mortality was
68
recorded to be 30.00 per cent on mentioned variety. The remaining oils also contributed
higher mortality than the control. Dose wise outcomes of various oils indicated that at
2ml dose, neem and coconut oils resulted in highest (29.98 %) mortality and was
significantly superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by karanj (26.66 %),
castor (23.33 %), sunflower (19.98 %), soybean (16.66 %) and mustard (10.00 %) oils
which are significantly different from each others on DDR 23 variety at the 2ml dose.
Similar trend in contact toxicity to adults was noticed in case of 3ml and 5ml doses also.
The interaction between the variety and dose, oil and dose and variety, dose and oils
remained significantly. Bhardwaj and Verma (2012) investigated plant oils on adult
mortality of pulse beetle, they observed and recorded the result at 3 per cent dose
mortality recorded with neem and karanj and mustard oils 96.67, 93.33 and 66.67 per
cent after 10 days.
69
1 Neem oil 26.66 29.98 29.99 29.99 43.32 30.00 33.32a 30.00b
(31.05)* (33.15) (33.15) (33.15) (41.15) (33.21)
2 Castor oil 23.32 23.33 23.32 23.32 29.99 23.32 25.54b 23.32e
(28.90) (28.86) (28.86) (28.86) (33.15) (28.86)
3 Coconut oil 19.98 29.99 19.99 30.00 29.99 35.65 23.32c 31.88a
(26.49) (33.15) (26.49) (33.21) (33.15) (36.63)
4 Sunflower oil 3.33 19.98 16.65 23.33 23.32 39.99 14.43f 27.76d
(10.50) (26.49) (24.04) (28.86) (28.86) (39.17)
5 Karanj oil 16.65 26.66 19.99 26.65 39.99 33.33 25.54b 28.88c
(24.08) (31.05) (26.49) (31.05) (39.17) (35.24)
6 Soybean oil 19.98 16.66 19.98 26.65 19.99 26.66 20.00d 23.32e
(26.49) (24.04) (26.49) (31.05) (26.49) (31.05)
7 Mustard oil 13.32 10.00 13.32 15.42 23.32 19.99 16.65e 15.13f
(21.39) (18.44) (21.39) (23.11) (28.86) (26.49)
Mean 17.60 22.37 20.46 25.05 29.98 29.84
8 Untreated 8.88
control (17.26)
SEm. (±) 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.25
C.D. (at 5%) 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.29 0.41 0.50 0.71
CV (%) 5.41
70
45
40
35 HUDP 15, 2ml
30 HUDP 15, 3ml

HUDP 15, 5ml
25
DDR 23, 2ml
20
DDR 23, 3ml
15 DDR 23, 5ml
10
0
71
The jars containing the treated seed ware observed after 240 hours of treatment
for the parental mortality. The dead adults were discarded after 240 hours from jars. The
fig. 8.

29.98, 16.65 to 30.00 and 19.98 to 39.59 per cent on HUDP 15 variety and from 6.66 to
3ml and 5ml doses, respectively. The overall mean mortality for different oils tested
indicated that the highest (31.10 %) adult mortality was found with castor oil that proved
better in performance over rest of the oils on HUDP 15 variety. Neem oil ranked second
in efficacy where the mortality was recorded to be 26.65 per cent on mentioned variety.
The remaining oils also contributed higher mortality than the control. The highest
mortality of 29.98, 30.00 and 33.32 per cent was attained through castor oil in all the
three doses on HUDP 15 variety, respectively. Dose wise outcomes of various oils
indicated that at 2ml dose, castor oil resulted in highest (29.98 %) mortality and was
significantly superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by coconut and mustard
(16.66 %), neem and sunflower (16.65 %), soybean (14.32 %) and karanj (6.66 %) oils
adult mortality on HUDP 15 variety at the 2ml dose. Similar trend in contact toxicity to
adults was noticed in case of 3ml and 5ml doses also. The interaction between the variety
and dose, oil and dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly. In case of DDR
23 variety, the overall mean mortality for different oils tested indicated that the highest
(26.66 %) adult mortality was found with mustard and soybean oils and it was proved
better in performance over rest of the oils at 2ml/ kg seed on DDR 23 variety. karanj oil
72
The highest mortality of 26.66, 33.32 and 39.99 per cent was attained through soybean oil
in all the three doses, respectively. Dose wise outcomes of various oils indicated that at
2ml dose, soybean and mustard oils resulted in highest (26.66 %) mortality and was
significantly superior over rest of the treatments followed jointly by karanj (23.32 %),
sunflower (19.99 %), castor (13.33 %), coconut(9.99 %) and neem (6.66 %) oils adult
mortality on DDR 23 variety at the 2ml dose. Similar trend in contact toxicity to adults
was noticed in case of 3ml and 5ml doses also. The interaction between the variety and
dose, oil and dose and variety, dose and oils remained significantly. Kahire et al. (1987)
reported that mustard and neem oils at higher concentrations were more toxic against
parental mortality of pulse beetles which supports the present findings. The present
results are more or less in conformity with the findings of Borthakur (1992) who reported
that vegetable oils like mustard, coconut, groundnut and sunflower oil could totally
prevent infestation by C. analis in green gram seeds up to 45 days after storage.
73
1 Neem oil 16.65 6.66 29.99 13.32 33.32 50.00 26.65b 23.32f
(24.04) (14.89) (33.15) (21.39) (35.24) (45.00)
2 Castor oil 29.98 13.33 30.00 26.66 33.32 39.99 31.10a 26.66d
(33.15) (21.39) (33.21) (31.05) (35.24) (39.17)
3 Coconut oil 16.66 9.99 26.66 20.00 26.66 26.66 23.32c 18.88g
(24.04) (18.34) (31.05) (26.56) (31.05) (31.05)
4 Sunflower oil 16.65 19.99 16.66 26.66 23.32 30.00 18.87e 25.55e
(24.04) (26.49) (24.04) (31.05) (28.90) (33.21)
5 Karanj oil 6.66 23.32 23.32 29.99 39.59 30.00 23.19c 27.77c
(14.89) (28.86) (28.90) (33.21) (38.95) (33.21)
6 Soybean oil 14.32 26.66 26.65 33.32 26.66 39.99 22.54d 33.32a
(22.22) (31.05) (31.05) (35.24) (31.05) (39.17)
7 Mustard oil 16.66 26.66 16.65 33.32 19.98 33.32 17.76f 31.10b
(24.08) (31.05) (24.04) (35.24) (26.49) (35.24)
Mean 16.79 18.08 24.27 26.18 28.97 35.70
8 Untreated 16.09
control (23.60)
SEm. (±) 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.21
C.D. (at 5%) 0.13 0.16 0.22 0.24 0.34 0.42 0.60
CV (%) 4.46
74
50
45
40 HUDP 15, 2ml

35 HUDP 15, 3ml
30 HUDP 15, 5ml
25 DDR 23, 2ml
20 DDR 23, 3ml
15
DDR 23, 5ml
10
0
75
4.2.6.5 Adult emergence at 45 DAT
The jars containing the treated seeds in which adults were released were observed
daily for the emergence of adults. In both varieties (HUDP 15 & DDR 23), the first adult
was emerged in control and the time taken for its emergence was about a month. The
number of adults emerged in various treatments at 45 days after the introduction of adults
were recorded in both varieties represented in the graphs 9, 10 and 11 at 2ml, 3ml and
5ml doses. The number of adults emerged was conducted and analysed.
It is evident that all plant oils at all the doses significantly effective in minimizing
adult emergence of pulse beetle when compared with untreated control which perceived
the maximum (94.00) adults emerged. The mean number of adults emerging from various
treatments, irrespective of dose, ranged from 6.11 in karanj oil to 29.21 adults in case of
sunflower oil on HUDP 15 variety. Neem oil with a figure of 6.44 ranked second in
efficacy followed by castor (12.44), coconut oil (17.77), mustard oil (18.44) and soybean
oil (21.11). The perusal of the dose wise data revealed that the increase in oil dose led to
decrease in the number of adult emergence. At 2ml/kg seed, the number of adults
emerged was lowest (7.33) in karanj oil and was significantly superior in efficacy over
rest of the treatments. It was followed by neem oil (9.00), castor oil (12.00), coconut oil
(19.33), soybean and mustard oils (24.00) and lastly sunflower oil (30.33). All the oils
differed significantly in efficacy. At 3ml/ kg seed, the least (7.00) number of adults
emerged was noticed in karanj and neem oils followed by castor oil (13.33). However, no
conclusive result could be obtained at this dose for some oils when compared with the
lower dose. All the highest dose (5ml/ kg seed) selected under the present study, least
number of adult emergence was noticed in some oils as compared to their lower doses in
all the oils tested. Neem oil maintained its supremacy where 3.33 number of adults
emerged. It was followed by karanj oil (4.00), coconut oil (11.00), castor oil (12.00),
sunflower oil (12.66), mustard oil (13.66) and soybean oil (19.00). All the oils under the
study differed significantly among themselves. The results further states that on DDR 23
variety of field pea, the mean adult emerged in different treatments ranged from 7.33 on
neem oil to 42.00 on sunflower oil treatment. The order of mean adult emergence in
76
different treatments was follows neem oil 7.33, castor oil 8.44, karanj oil 10.77, soybean
oil 16.00, coconut oil 16.66, mustard oil 19.22 and sunflower oil 42.00 adults.
In case of DDR 23 variety, the proportion of eggs developing into adults at 2ml
was between 2.01 in castor oil and 38.66 in sunflower oil. Neem oil ranked second in
efficacy after castor oil where adults emerged were 12.00 followed by soybean oil
(21.00), karanj oil (22.00), coconut oil (22.33), mustard oil (24.00) and sunflower oil
(38.66) which differed significantly. At 3ml dose, the adult emerging of pulse beetle was
between neem (6.00 adults) and sunflower (44.66 adults) on DDR 23 variety. Karanj(9.00
adults) ranked next in performance that was followed by castor (14.33 adults), soybean
(18.33 adults), mustard (19.00 adults) and coconut (20.33 adults) oils which were not par
to each other. At 5ml dose, the adult emerging of pulse beetle was between karanj (1.33
adults) and sunflower (45.66 adults) on DDR 23 variety. Neem (4.00 adults) ranked next
in performance and was followed by soybean (8.66 adults), (9.00 adults), coconut (13.33
adults) and mustard (14.66 adults) oils on DDR 23 variety of field pea, which were not
par to each other (Table 9). The present findings draw considerable support from the
reports of Ali et al. (1983) who reported mahua, neem, mustard and seasame @ 1.00 per
cent had drought about zero per cent adult emergence in green gram. Khaire et al., (1993)
found that adult emergence was completely prevented by karanj oil at 0.75 and 1.00 per
cent and neem oil at all levels upto 100 days.
Khaire et al. (1992) recorded the efficacy of ten vegetable oils viz. sunflower,
castor, mustard, safflower, palm, groundnut, sesame, neem, karanj and maize each
applied at rates of 5, 7.5 and 10 ml/kg of grain (0.5, 0.75 and 1% v/w dose) as grain
protectants of pigeon pea against C. chinensis. Effects on progeny emergence, loss in
grain weight and germination up to 100 days after treatment were measured. Adult
emergence was completely prevented by karanj oil at 0.75 and 1per cent and neem oil at
all levels up to 100 days. No emergence of adults occurred up to 66 days with castor oil
at 0.75 and 1 per cent levels.
77
Table 9. Adults of pulse beetle emerging out at 45 DAT in different treatments on field pea varieties (number basis)
Adult emergence at mentioned dosage and variety
Sl. No. Treatment 2ml/ kg seed 3ml/ kg seed 5ml/ kg seed Mean Mean
1 Soybean oil 24.00 21.00 20.33 18.33 19.00 8.66 21.11f 16.00d
(5.39)* (5.08) (5.00) (4.78) (4.85) (3.44)
2 Sunflower oil 30.33 38.66 44.66 41.66 12.66 45.66 29.21g 42.00g
(6.00) (6.71) (7.18) (6.95) (4.05) (7.25)
3 Mustard oil 24.00 24.00 17.66 19.00 13.66 14.66 18.44e 19.22f
(5.39) (5.39) (4.70) (4.85) (4.19) (4.32)
4 Karanj oil 7.33 22.00 7.00 9.00 4.00 1.33 6.11a 10.77c
(3.20) (5.19) (3.14) (3.50) (2.50) (1.65)
5 Coconut oil 19.33 22.33 23.00 20.33 11.00 13.33 17.77d 16.66e
(4.89) (5.22) (5.29) (5.00) (3.81) (4.15)
6 Castor oil 12.00 2.01 13.33 14.33 12.00 9.00 12.44c 8.44fb
(3.96) (5.08) (4.15) (4.28) (3.96) (3.50)
7 Neem oil 9.00 12.00 7.00 6.00 3.33 4.00 6.44b 7.33a
(3.50) (3.96) (4.14) (2.94) (2.32) (2.50)
Mean 18.00 20.28 19.00 18.37 10.80 13.80
8 Untreated 94.00
control (10.19)
Treatme
Variety Dose VXD VXT DXT VXDXT
nt
SEm. (±) 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.23
C.D. (at 5%) 0.13 `0.16 0.22 0.26 0.37 0.45 0.64
CV % 3.46
*Figures in parentheses are √X + 0.5 transformed values
78
30
25
20
HUDP 15
15
DDR 23
10
30
25
20
HUDP 15
15
DDR 23
10
79
30
25
20
HUDP 15
15
DDR 23
10
80
4.2.6.6 Effect of different treatments on seed damage at 45 DAT
Results on the effect of various treatments on seed damage caused by pulse

beetles in 2ml, 3ml and 5ml doses at 45 DAT on HUDP 15 and DDR 23 varieties of field
pea have been exhibited in Table 10. Observations on the efficacy of oils clearly
indicated all the treatments offered fairly good protection over untreated control (27.58
%). The mean seed damage in various oils at three doses varied from 3.21 per cent
(karanj oil) to 15.39 per cent (sunflower oil) on HUDP 15 variety while it was ranged
from 3.32 per cent (karanj oil and neem oil) to 21.15 per cent (sunflower oil) on DDR 23
variety of field pea. In case of HUDP 15 variety, neem ranked second (3.73 %) that was
followed by castor (6.36 %), coconut (9.31 %), mustard (9.70 %) and soybean (10.06 %)
oils, while the castor (7.75 %) ranked second that was followed by soybean (8.41 %),
coconut (9.87 %) and mustard (10.10 %) oils seed damage on DDR 23 variety,
respectively.
A perusal of the table further pointed out that the mean seed damage in all oils at
2ml, 3ml and 5ml doses reached up to 10.22,9.41and 5.57 per cent, respectively, on
HUDP 15 variety and 11.09, 9.67 and 6.81 per cent, respectively, on DDR 23 variety of
field pea. At 2ml, on HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the highest (15.66 %) damage was
recorded in sunflower oil treated seed that was followed by mustard oil (12.62 %),
soybean oil (12.50 %), coconut oil (10.17 %), castor oil (6.31 %) and neem oil (4.73 %).
At 3ml dose on HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the highest (24.03 %) per cent damage was
recorded in sunflower oil treated seed, followed by coconut oil (12.10 %), soybean oil
(10.69 %), mustard oil (9.29 %), castor oil (7.01 %) and neem oil (4.73 %). There were
significantly differences between all treatments. The lowest per cent damage (3.85) was
recorded by karanj oil treated seeds. In case of 3ml/kg seed, the effectiveness of karanj
(3.68 %) and neem (4.73 %) oils was higher than all the other treatments. At 5ml dose on
HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the highest (9.99) per cent damage on was recorded in
soybean oil treated seed, followed by mustard oil (7.19 %), sunflower oil (6.48 %), castor
oil (5.78 %), coconut oil (5.68 %) and karanj oil (2.10 %), respectively.
81
At 2ml on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the highest (20.34) per cent damage was
recorded in sunflower oil treated seed, followed by mustard oil (12.62 %), coconut oil
(11.75 %), castor oil (11.05 %), soybean oil (11.04 % ) and neem oil (6.31 %). The
lowest per cent damage (4.56 %) was recorded by karanj oil treated seeds. In case of
2ml/kg seed on DDR 23 variety, the effectiveness of karanj and neem oils was higher
than all the other treatments. At 3ml on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the highest (21.92)
per cent damage was recorded in sunflower oil treated seed followed by coconut oil
(10.69 %), mustard oil (9.99 %), soybean oil (9.64 %), castor oil (7.54 %) and karanj oil
(4.73 %). The lowest per cent damage (3.15 %) was recorded by neem oil treated seeds.
At 3ml/kg seed on DDR 23 variety, the effectiveness of neem and karanj oils was higher
than all the other treatments. At 5ml dose on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the highest
(22.27 %) damage was recorded in sunflower oil treated seed, followed by mustard oil
(7.71 %), soybean oil (7.55 %), coconut oil (7.18 %), castor oil (4.73 %) and karanj oil
(0.69 %). The lowest per cent damage (0.52 %) was recorded by neem oil treated seeds.
In case of 5ml/kg seed on DDR 23 variety, the effectiveness of neem (0.52 %) and karanj
(0.62 %) oils was very high than all other treatments, (Table 10).
All the seven oils selected for the experiment, proved significantly superior over
control. However, their efficacy varied in reducing seed damage. Though, the mean
relative efficacy of different oils evaluated after 45 day of differed treatment could be
averaged in the following descending order:
i. On two varieties, karanj and neem oil maintained their supremacy in

reducing Karanj= Neem˃ Castor˃ Soybean˃ Coconut˃ Mustard˃
Sunflower
ii. Infestation. Castor, coconut and mustard oils also gave away almost
similar result by maintaining 3rd to 5th position. It was also evident that
efficacy of oils increases with increase in dose, the lowest seed damage
was recorded at 5ml/ kg seed.
Earlier, Kumari et al. (1990) revealed that mustard, neem and mahua oils as grain
protectants at one per cent concentration proved equally effective for reduction in the
82
percentage of damaged grains by number as well as weight. Singh et al. (2001) revealed
that neem oil and neem leaf powder appeared to be most effective to minimize the
damage by the pest in grains being 2.06 and 2.66 per cent, respectively, as against 69.63
per cent in untreated grains. Mustard oil when applied as surface protectant to pea
seeds@ 2 ml per kg of seed completely prevented grain damage by C. chinensis as
reported by Singh et al. (2006) also supports the findings of the present studies. Swella
and Mushobozy (2007) observed that coconut oil provided the best protection against C.
maculatus. Singal (1995) noticed that coconut, groundnut and mustard oil as surface
protectants proved highly effective in protecting seeds of chickpea for 8 months storage.
Singal recorded Minimum adult emergence (0.56 beetles) was recorded in neem oil
coated seeds was statistically at par with karanj (0.89 beetles) after sixty days of
treatment.
83
Table 10. Per cent infestation of field pea by C. chinensis 45 DAT in different treatments
At mentioned dosage and variety
Sl. No. Treatment 2ml/ kg seed 3ml/ kg seed 5ml/ kg seed Mean Mean
1 Soybean oil 10.69 11.04 12.50 9.64 9.99 4.55 10.06f 8.41c
(19.00)* (19.37) (20.70) (18.05) (18.34) (12.25)
2 Sunflower oil 24.03 20.34 15.66 21.92 6.48 22.27 15.39g 21.15f
(29.33) (26.78) (23.26) (27.90) (14.65) (28.11)
3 Mustard oil 9.29 12.62 12.62 9.99 7.19 7.71 9.70e 10.10e
(17.70) (20.79) (20.79) (18.34) (15.45) (16.11)
4 Karanj oil 3.68 4.56 3.85 4.73 2.10 0.69 3.21a 3.32a
(10.94) (12.25) (11.24) (12.52) (8.33) (4.44)
5 Coconut oil 12.10 11.75 10.17 10.69 5.68 7.18 9.31d 9.87d
(20.36) (20.00) (18.53) (19.00) (13.69) (15.75)
6 Castor oil 7.01 11.005 6.31 7.54 5.78 4.73 6.36c 7.75b
(15.34) (19.39) (14.54) (15.89) (13.81) (12.52)
7 Neem oil 4.73 6.31 4.73 3.15 1.75 0.52 3.73b 3.32a
(12.52) (14.54) (12.52) (10.14) (7.49) (4.05)
Mean 10.22 11.09 9.41 9.67 5.57 6.81
8 Untreated 27.58
control (31.63)
SEm. (±) 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.36
C.D. (at 5%) 0.20 0.25 0.36 0.41 0.58 0.72 1.01
CV (%) 3.42
84
30
25
20
15 HUDP 15
DDR 23
10
30
25
20
HUDP 15
15
DDR 23
10
85
30
25
20
HUDP 15
15
DDR 23
10
86
4.2.6.7 Effect of different treatments on loss in weight (g) 45 DAT
The efficacy of different plant oils on loss in weight of field pea by C. chinensis is
present in Table 11. The mean weigh loss ranged from 0.76g to 0.22 g on HUDP 15
variety while it was 0.55 to 0.16g on DDR 23 variety of field pea. Loss in weight in
untreated control was 4.62g.
The data in the Table 11 revealed that at the lowest (2ml/ kg seed) dose on HUDP
15 variety of field pea, the lowest (0.25g) loss in weight was recorded in castor oil treated
seed, followed by karanj oil (0.26g), neem oil (0.36g), coconut oil (0.54g), mustard
(0.56g) and sunflower (0.74g) oil. The highest loss in weight (0.83g) was recorded by
soybean oil treated seeds. At 3ml dose on the HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the lowest
(0.21g) loss in weight was recorded in neem oil treated seed, followed by karanj oil
(0.29g), castor oil (0.32g), mustard oil (0.37g), coconut oil (0.67g) and sunflower oil
(0.70g). The highest loss in weight (0.78g) was recorded by soybean oil treated seeds. At
5ml dose on HUDP 15 variety of field pea, the lowest (0.10g) loss in weight was
recorded in neem oil treated seed, followed by karanj oil (0.16g), sunflower oil (0.32g),
castor oil (0.35 g), coconut oil (0.37g) and mustard oil (0.47g). The highest loss in weight
(0.68g) was recorded in soybean oil treated seeds.
At 2ml dose on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the lowest (0.28g) loss in weight was
recorded in castor oil treated seed, followed by karanj oil (0.30g), neem oil (0.31g),
coconut oil (0.57g), mustard oil (0.63g) and soybean oil (0.66g). The highest loss in
weight (0.69g) was recorded by sunflower oil treated seeds. At 3ml dose the efficacy of
different oils on DDR 23 variety of field pea, the lowest (0.11g) loss in weight was
recorded in karanj oil treated seed, followed by neem oil (0.12g), castor oil (0.35g),
sunflower oil (0.39g), mustard oil and soybean oil (0.40g). The highest loss in weight
(0.70g) was recorded by coconut oil treated seeds. At 5ml dose of different treatments on
DDR 23 variety of field pea, the lowest (0.07g) loss in weight was recorded in neem oil
treated seed, followed by karanj oil (0.20g), soybean oil (0.34g), sunflower oil treated
seed (0.35g), coconut oil (0.39g) and castor oil (0.40g). The highest loss in weight
(0.49g) was recorded by mustard oil treated seeds, (Table 11).
87
Bhardwaj and Verma (2013) reported that all the oils they tested provided
significant protection to pea seeds from the damage by C. chinensis. Neem oil was the
most effective treatment allowing only 0.11 per cent damage followed by karanj (0.18%),
cedar (0.29%), mustard (0.47%) olive (0.87%) and apricot (1.43%). Seed damage in
untreated control was 9.72 per cent. No seed damage was recorded in neem oil at 5 per
cent dose and it was at par with its lower doses (3 and 1 %), karanj (5, 3 and 1%), cedar
and mustard at 5 and 3 per cent, olive and apricot at 5 per cent. Neem, karanj and cedar
oil minimized the weight loss in treated seeds to 0.11, 0.22 and 0.30 per cent, respectively
as against 11.02 per cent in the control. Among all these treatments, mixing of oils of
neem and karanj at 1 per cent was effective to minimize weight loss due to C. chinensis
infestation. The present findings are almost in conformity with the above findings.
88
Table 11. Loss in weight (g) of field pea by pulse beetle on weight basis 45 DAT in different treatments
Sl. 2ml/kg seed 3ml/kg seed 5ml/kg seed Mean Mean
Treatment
No. HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 (HUDP 15) (DDR 23)
1 Soybean oil 0.83 0.66 0.78 0.40 0.68 0.34 0.76g 0.46d
(1.41)* (1.31) (1.38) (1.13) (1.32) (1.08)
2 Sunflower oil 0.74 0.69 0.70 0.39 0.32 0.35 0.58f 0.47e
(1.36) (1.33) (1.33) (1.12) (1.06) (1.09)
3 Mustard oil 0.56 0.63 0.37 0.40 0.47 0.49 0.46d 0.50f
(1.24) (1.29) (1.10) (1.13) (1.18) (1.20)
4 Karanj oil 0.26 0.30 0.29 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.23b 0.20b
(1.00) (1.04) (1.003) (0.83) (0.90) (0.94)
5 Coconut oil 0.54 0.57 0.67 0.70 0.37 0.39 0.52e 0.55g
(1.23) (1.25) (1.31) (1.33) (1.10) (1.12)
6 Castor oil 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.30c 0.34c
(1.00) (1.02) (1.06) (1.09) (1.09) (1.13)
7 Neem oil 0.36 0.31 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.22a 0.16a
(1.00) (1.005) (0.95) (0.84) (0.81) (0.76)
Mean 0.50 0.49 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.32
8 Untreated control 4.62
(2.64)
SEm. (±) 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.009
C.D. (at 5%) 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.016
CV (%) 6.15
89
4.2.6.7 Weight of frass on (g) basis 45 DAT in different treatments
Frass weight value was also recorded on both varieties of field pea. At 2ml/kg
seed on HUDP 15 variety, the lowest (0.09g) frass weight value was recorded in castor
oil treated seed followed by karanj(0.10g), neem oil (0.18g), coconut oil treated seed
(0.38 g), mustard oil (0.39g), and sunflower oil (0.59g). The highest value (0.67g) was
recorded in soybean oil treated seed. At 3ml dose of different treatments on HUDP 15
variety, the lowest (0.10g) frass weight value was recorded in neem oil and karanj oil
treated seed, followed by castor oil (0.15g), mustard oil (0.19g), coconut oil (0.50g),
sunflower oil (0.56g). The highest frass weight value (0.61g) was recorded in soybean oil
treated seed. At 5ml dose of different treatments on HUDP 15 variety, the lowest (0.12g)
frass weight value was recorded in neem oil treated seed, followed by sunflower oil
(0.15g), castor oil and karanj oil (0.18g), coconut oil (0.19g) and mustard oil (0.29g). The
highest value (0.51g) was recorded in soybean oil treated seed.
At 2ml dose of different treatment on DDR 23 variety, the lowest (0.10g) frass
weight value was recorded in castor oil treated seed, followed by karanj oil (0.12g), neem
oil (0.13g), coconut oil (0.43 g), mustard oil (0.46g), and soybean oil (0.50g). The highest
value (0.51g) was recorded in sunflower oil treated seed. At 3ml dose on DDR 23 variety,
the lowest (0.13g) frass weight value was recorded in karanj oil treated seed, followed by
neem oil (0.14g), castor oil (0.18g), sunflower oil (0.21g), mustard oil (0.23g), and
soybean oil (0.23g). The highest value (0.53g) was recorded in coconut oil treated seed
respectively. At 5ml dose on DDR 23 variety, the lowest (0.09g) frass weight value was
recorded in neem oil treated seed, followed by karanj oil (0.13g), sunflower oil (0.17g),
coconut oil (0.21 g), castor oil (0.22g), and soybean oil (0.26g). The highest value (0.32g)
was recorded in mustard oil treated seed, (Table 12). So far no report could be obtained
on this aspect.
90
Table 12.Weight of frass(g) at 45 DAT in different treatments
Sl. 2ml/ kg seed 3ml/ kg seed 5ml/ kg seed

Treatment Mean Mean
No. HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 HUDP 15 DDR 23 (HUDP 15) (DDR 23)
1 Soybean oil 0.67 0.50 0.61 0.23 0.51 0.26 0.59a 0.33b
(1.31)* (1.20) (1.28) (0.97) (1.21) (1.00)
2 Sunflower oil 0.59 0.51 0.56 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.43b 0.29c
(1.26) (1.21) (1.24) (0.95) (0.88) (0.91)
3 Mustard oil 0.39 0.46 0.19 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.29d 0.33b
(1.12) (1.17) (0.93) (0.97) (1.03) (1.06)
4 Karanj oil 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.12f 0.12e
(0.81) (0.84) (0.81) (0.86) (0.92) (0.86)
5 Coconut oil 0.38 0.43 0.50 0.53 0.19 0.21 0.35c 0.39a
(1.11) (1.15) (1.20) (1.22) (0.93) (0.95)
6 Castor oil 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.14e 0.16d
(0.80) (0.81) (0.88) (0.92) (0.92) (0.96)
7 Neem oil 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.13g 0.12e
(0.92) (0.86) (0.81) (0.87) (0.84) (0.80)
Mean 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.20
8 Untreated 2.46
control (2.06)

SEm. (±) 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.009
C.D. (at 5%) 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.026
CV (%) 2.93
83
Chapter V
Summary
84
Chapter V
SUMMARY
In the content of the damage to the field pea by pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
chinensis in storage condition, exploratory studies have been conducted during March,
2018 to end of September, 2018 to ascertain the biology of the pest in the agro climatic
condition of Ranchi and the efficacy of seven plant oils at three different doses against
that dreaded pest.
The outcome of the investigation pertaining to the biology of the pulse beetles are
summarized below.
Fecundity of a single female, irrespective of variety of field pea and generation of

pulse beetle varied from 65.60 to 79.80. Significantly different were obtained in all the
three generations between the varieties, the higher being in the HUDP 15 variety. Less
number of eggs were deposited on the DDR 23 variety. Highly fecundity was noticed in
the third generation.
The mean incubation period was 5.50±0.50 days in the first and third generations
while it was 4.00±1.00 days in the second generation on HUDP 15 variety. The mean
incubation period obtained on DDR 23 variety indicated the values were 5.50±1.50,
4.50±0.50 and 5.00±1.00 days in the first, second and third generations, respectively.
The mean pre-oviposition period was ranged from 13.00±1.00 hours in the first
generation, 7.00±3.00 hours in the second generation 4.5±0.50 hours in the third
generation on HUDP 15 variety while it was ranged from 8.50±0.50 hours in the first
generation, 6.50±0.50 hours in the second generation 5.00±1.00 hours in the third
generation on DDR 23 variety.
The mean oviposition period ranged from 4.50±0.50 days in the first generation,
3.00±1.00 days in second and 4.50±0.50 days in third generation on HUDP 15 variety
while the values on DDR 23 were 4.50±1.50 days, 3.50±0.50 days and 4.00±1.00 days in
the first, second and third generation, respectively. The mean post-oviposition period
ranged from 5.50±1.50 days, 2.50±0.50 days and 3.50±0.50 days in the first, second and
85
third generation on HUDP 15 variety, but it was ranged from 5.00±1.00 days, 3.50±0.50
days and 2.50±0.50 days in the first, second and third generation on DDR 23 variety.
The mean larval + pupal period was ranged from 27.50±7.50 days in the first
generation, 30.50±9.50 days in the second generation and 21.00±3.00 days in the third
generation on the HUDP 15 variety. The corresponding values on DDR 23 variety were
29.00±9.00 days, 27.00±4.00 days and 29.00±10.00 days, respectively.
The mean adult longevity on HUDP 15 variety in the first and third generations,
ranged from 9.00±1.00 days and 6.50±1.50 days in the second generation, while the adult
longevity was ranged from 11.00±1.00 days in the first generation, 8.00±1.00 days in the
second and 7.50±1.50 days in the third generation on the DDR 23 variety.
The mean male longevity ranged from 5.50±1.50 days in the first and second
generations and 7.50±1.50 days in the third generation on HUDP 15 variety of field pea,
and 8.25±1.75 days, 7.00±2.00 days and 5.50±1.50 days in the first, second and third
generations were DDR 23 variety of field pea.
The mean longevity of female ranged from 9.00±1.00 days in the first and third
generations and from 6.50±1.50 days in the second generation on HUDP 15 variety,
while the corresponding values for DDR 23 variety were ranged from 11.00±1.00 days,
8.00±1.00 days and 7.50±1.50 days in the first second and third generations, respectively.
The mean total life cycle ranged from 41.00±9.00 days in the first, 38.00±10.00
days in second and 30 – 39 days 34.5±4.50 days in third generation. But it was ranged
from 44.50±11.50 days in first, 38.5±5.50 days in second and 40.50±12.50 days in the
third generation on DDR 23 variety of field.
The highest hatching percentage rate (74 %) with sex developmental ratio of
50.00 male and 50.00 female was recorded in the second generation on the variety HUDP
15, (72.66 %) with 60.00 male and 40.00 females in the first generation and the lowest
(54.66 %) hatchability of eggs was recorded in third generation with 48:52 ratios of male:
female. But the corresponding values for DDR 23 variety which ranged from 47.33 to
86
55.33 per cent in different generations with ratios of male: female in three different
generations were 54:46, 49:51 and 49:51, respectively
The mean per cent damage was 44.21 per cent in the first generation, 40.52 per
cent in second generation and 45.78 per cent in third generation on the HUDP 15 variety
of field pea. The damage values in DDR 23 were 39.47, 41.57 and 40.52 per cent in the
first, second and third generations, respectively.
The mean loss in weight (8.70g) was observed in the first generation followed by
third generation (6.30g) and (6.22g) in the second generation on HUDP 15 variety. On
DDR 23 variety of field pea, the grain weight loss varied from 5.62g to 8.00g, the lowest
being in second generation followed by in the first generation (7.52g) and in the third
generation the weight loss was maximum (8.00g).
The mean frass weight value On HUDP 15 variety was, the highest (2.66 g) in
second generation, (2.43 g) third generation and (2.29 g) first generation. While the DDR
23 variety frass weight value was (2.09g) in the second generation followed by third and
first generations where the frass weight values were 2.07g and 2.04g, respectively.
Management trial
For the effective management of pulse beetles, laboratory experiment was

conducted at the P.G. Laboratory, Department of Entomology with seven plant oils viz.
neem, castor, karanj, mustard, soybean, sunflower and coconut oils. The efficacy of all
the oils was tested at three doses of 2ml, 3ml and 5ml per kg seed, respectively, against
untreated control.
The results on the efficacy of different doses of seven plant oils for adult mortality
of pulse beetle at 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours after treatment indicated that all the oils
tested in all the three doses proved significantly better than control on both the varieties
of field pea.

mortality of adult of C. chinensis at 24 hours after treatment irrespective of doses, all the
87
oils (treatments) significantly brought about higher adult mortality as compared to
control. The overall mean mortality for different oils tested on HUDP 15 variety
indicated that at 24 hours after treatment, the highest (11.10 %) adult mortality was found
with castor and coconut oil. Sunflower oil ranked second in efficacy where the mortality
was recorded to be 8.88 per cent followed by neem oil 6.66 per cent, soybean 5.55 per
cent and karanj and mustard oils 4.44 per cent. At 48 hours after treatment, the highest
adult mortality obtained by neem oil 23.32 per cent. Coconut oil ranked second 17.77 per
cent, followed by sunflower and castor oils 14.43 per cent, soybean oil 7.77 per cent and
mustard 6.66 per cent. At 120 hours after treatment, the highest mortality was recorded
by neem oil 33.32 per cent followed by castor and karanj oils 25.54 per cent, coconut oil
23.32 per cent, soybean oil 20.00 per cent, mustard oil 16.65 per cent and sunflower oil
14.43 per cent. At 240 hours of treatment, the highest mortality was recorded by castor
oil 31.10 per cent followed by neem oil 26.65 per cent, coconut oil 23.32 per cent, karanj
oil 23.19 per cent, soybean oil 22.54 per cent, sunflower oil 18.87 per cent and mustard
oil 17.76 per cent, respectively. The overall mean mortality of the seven oils at 24 hours
of treatment on DDR 23 variety, the highest mortality 17.77 per cent was recorded by
castor oil. Neem oil ranked second with 13.23 per cent adult mortality followed by
sunflower 11.10 per cent, coconut oil 10.00 per cent, karanj oil and mustard oil 7.77 per
cent and soybean oil 4.44 per cent, respectively. At 48 hours of treatment, the highest
mortality 25.54 per cent was obtained by neem and coconut oils followed by castor oil
23.32 per cent, sunflower oil 18.86 per cent, karanj oil 14.43 per cent, mustard oil 12.21
per cent and soybean oil 11.10 per cent. At 120 hours of treatment, the highest adult
mortality 31.88 per cent was recorded by coconut oil followed by neem oil 30.00 per
cent, karanj oil 28.88 per cent, sunflower oil 27.76 per cent, castor and soybean oils 23.32
per cent and mustard oil 15.13 per cent. At 240 hours of treatment, the highest adult
mortality 33.32 per cent was obtained by soybean oil followed by mustard oil 31.10 per
cent, karanj oil 27.77 per cent, castor oil 26.66 per cent, sunflower oil 25.50 per cent,
neem oil 23.32 per cent and coconut oil 18.88 per cent.
It is evident that all plant oils at all the doses significantly effective in minimizing
adult emergence of pulse beetle when compared with untreated control which perceived
88
the maximum (94.00) adults emerged. The mean number of adults emerging from various
treatments, irrespective of dose, ranged from 6.11 in karanj oil to 29.21 adults in case of
sunflower oil on HUDP 15 variety. Neem oil with a figure of 6.44 ranked second in
efficacy followed by castor (12.44), coconut oil (17.77), mustard oil (18.44) and soybean
oil (21.11). The perusal of the dose wise data revealed that the increase in oil dose led to
decrease in the number of adult emergence. At 2ml/kg seed, the number of adults
emerged was lowest (7.33) in karanj oil and was significantly superior in efficacy over
rest of the treatments. It was followed b neem oil (9.00), castor oil (12.00), coconut oil
(19.33), soybean and mustard oils (24.00) and lastly sunflower oil (30.33). All the oils
differed significantly in efficacy. At 3ml/ kg seed, the least (7.00) number of adults
emerged was noticed in karanj and neem oils followed by castor oil (13.33). However, no
conclusive result could be obtained at this dose for some oils when compared with the
lower dose. All the highest dose (5ml/ kg seed) selected under the present study, least
number of adult emergence was noticed in some oils as compared to their lower doses in
all the oils tested. Neem oil maintained its supremacy where 3.33 number of adults
emerged. It was followed by karanj oil (4.00), coconut oil (11.00), castor oil (12.00),
sunflower oil (12.66), mustard oil (13.66) and soybean oil (19.00). All the oils under the
study differed significantly among themselves. The results further states that on DDR 23
variety of field pea, the mean adult emerged in different treatments ranged from 7.33 on
neem oil to 42.00 on sunflower oil treatment. The order of mean adult emergence in
different treatments was follows neem oil 7.33, castor oil 8.44, karanj oil 10.77, soybean
oil 16.00, coconut oil 16.66, mustard oil 19.22 and sunflower oil 42.00 adults.
The overall mean of adult emerging in different oils was recorded on both
varieties. In case of HUDP 15 variety, karanj oil was obtained (6.11 adults) best
effectiveness in adult emerging of pulse beetle followed by neem oil (6.44 adults), castor
oil (12.44 adults) coconut oil (17.77 adults), mustard oil (18.44 adults), soybean oil
(21.11 adults) and sunflower oil (29.21 adults), respectively. But in case of DDR 23
variety, the effectiveness of neem oil (7.33 adults) was better than the remaining oils
followed by castor oil (8.44 adults), karanj oil (10.77 adults), soybean oil (16.00 adults),
89
coconut oil (16.66 adults), mustard oil (19.22 adults) and sunflower oil (42.00 adults),
respectively. The untreated control value was observed 94.00 adults.
The overall mean values of infestation was obtained 3.21 per cent in karanj oil,
3.73 per cent in neem oil, 6.36 per cent in castor oil, 9.31 per cent coconut oil, 9.70 per
cent in mustard oil, 10.06 per cent in soybean oil and 15.39 per cent in sunflower oil,
respectively, on HUDP 15 variety. The untreated control was recorded 27.78 per cent.
The corresponding value of DDR 23 variety, 3.32, 7.75, 8.41, 9.87, 10.10 and 21.15 in
neem and karanj, castor, soybean, coconut, mustard and sunflower oils, respectively, was
recorded.
The overall mean values of loss in seed weight was obtained 0.22g in neem oil,
0.23g in karanj oil, 0.30g in castor oil, 0.46g in mustard oil, 0.52g in coconut oil, 0.58g in
sunflower oil and 0.76g in soybean oil, respectively, on HUDP 15 variety. The untreated
control was recorded 4.62g. The corresponding value of DDR 23 variety, 0.16, 0.20,
0.34, 0.65, 0.47, 0.50 and 0.55 in neem, karanj, castor, soybean, sunflower, mustard and
coconut oils, respectively, was recorded.
90
Chapter VI
CONCLUSION
91
Chapter VI
CONCLUSION
Pulses are the excellent source of protein, vitamins and minerals. The scientific
name of pea is (Pisum sativum) and it is an important and very popular legume crop. Its
green pods as well as dry seeds are in great demand for cooking as vegetable and as
pulse. Pea seeds are nutritious as it contains 51 per cent carbohydrates, 26 per cent
proteins, 4 per cent minerals and 3 per cent vitamins respectively. Laboratory
experiments were carried out to observe the biology and also to find effective control of
pulse beetles on field pea. On the basis of findings of present investigation, the following
conclusions could be drawn.
The data arrived from this study demonstrated that C. chinensis preferred field
pea as other pulses for oviposition. The average incubation period, larval + pupal period
and adult longevity of male and female were 6.5, 26.33, 7.5 and 10.66 days on HUDP 15
variety and 6.16, 28.33, 6.91 and 8.41 days on DDR 23 variety. The pre-oviposition,
oviposition and post-oviposition periods were 0.34, 4.66 and 4.66 days on HUDP 15
variety and 0.27, 4.33 and 3.66 days on DDR 23 variety, respectively.
The average fecundity of the female was (73.20 and 69.26 eggs) on HUDP 15 and
DDR 23 varieties of pea, respectively, during the three generations of C. chinensis. The
average egg hatching rate recorded was 67.10 and 51.55 per cent on the HUDP 15 and
DDR 23 varieties of field pea, respectively, during the three generations of pulse beetle.
The mean life cycle of pulse beetle on HUDP 15 variety was noticed to be 40.08 days
while on DDR 23 variety it was recorded 40.33 days.
From this study, it can be concluded that field pea seeds are most vulnerable
legume seeds and are most suitable host for C. chinensis as other legumes seeds.
The findings of the experimentation related to management of pulse beetle

revealed that, all the three (2ml, 3ml and 5ml/kg seed) doses of seven treatments tested
were to some degree not only effective in oviposition of pulse beetle, but also appreciably
92
inhibited eggs hatching rate thereby leading to a significant reduction in the number of
emerged adults and damage rates from the treated field pea. However, the highest
percentage progeny inhibition and minimal field pea seed damage were observed in the
grains treated with the different doses of the treatments with their adult mortality rates
during the study period. The results suggested that karanj, neem and castor oils when
applied @ 5ml/kg seed resulted in 93.29 to 96.62 per cent mortality. Whereas sunflower,
soybean, karanj, castor and neem oils @ 3ml/kg seed gave 79.95 % to 93.28 per cent
mortality. At 2ml/ kg seed, the treatments proved with 63.29 to 89.99 per cent mortality.
On the basis of the findings it could be concluded that any one of karanj, neem
and castor oils @5ml/ kg seed dose if mixed with field pea seed could provide
appreciable protection against pulse beetles.
93
Bibliography
94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adugna, H. 2006. On-Farm storage studies in Eritrea. African J. Biotechnol. 5(17):
1537-1544.
Ahmad, S.; Haque, A. and Mahmud, H. 2018. Effect of Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus
chinensis L. on Oviposition and Damage in Some Important Genotypes of Pulse
Crops in Bangladesh. Biomed. J. Sci. & Tech. Res. 2(2): 1-5.
Ahmed, K.S.; Itino, T. and Ichikawa, T. 2003. Duration of developmental stages of
Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on azuki bean and the
effects of neem and sesame oils at different stages of their development. Pak. J.
Biol. Sci. 6: 932-935.
Ali, M.R.; Rahman, M.M. and Quamruzzaman, A.K.M. 1999. Studies on the host
preference of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. to different pulses. J.
Agric. Edu. Tech. 2(2): 139-144.
Ali, S.I.; Singh, O.P. and Mishra, U.S. 1983. Effectiveness of plant oils against pulse
beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. Indian J. Ent. 45(1): 6-9.
Anonymous. 1984. Pulse beetle incidence in stored pulses and control measures. Annual
Report, Legumes Post harvest Technology, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agril Res
Inst, Joydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh: 6-13pp.
Arora, G.L. 1977. Bruchidae of North West India. Oriental insects supplement. No. 7.
The association for the study of oriental insects, New Delhi. 132.
Aslam, M. 2004. Pest Status of Stored Chickpea Beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis Linn.
on Chickpea. J. of Ent. 1(1): 28-33.
Bajya, D.R.; Meena, B.L. and Deshwal, H.L. 2007. Efficacy of plant products and
vegetable oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis in cowpea. Indian J.
of Plant Protection, 35 (1): 101-103.
Bato, S. M. and Sanchez, F. F. 1972. The biology and chemical control of
Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Philippine
Entomologist. 2(3): 167-182.
Bekele, A.J.; Oforiandm, D.O. and Hassanalim, A. 1995. Products derived from the
leaves of Occimum kilimandscharicum (Labiata) as post-harvest grain protectants
95
against the infestation of three major stored product insect pests. Bullitin of
Entomological Research, 85:361-367.
Bhaduria, N.S. and Jakhmola, S.S. 2006. Effect of intensity of infestation caused by
pulse beetle on extent of losses and seed germination in different pulses. Indian J.
of Ent. 68: 92-94.
Bhardwaj, A. and Verma, S.C. 2012. Evaluation of vegetable oils against pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infesting pea seeds (Pisum
sativum L.). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems. 18(1): 46-53.
Bhardwaj, A. and Verma, S.C. 2013. Effect of vegetable oils on pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation and germination
of pea seeds (Pisum sativum). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems. 19
(1): 116-118.
Biswas, N.P. and Biswas, A.K. 2005. Effect of some non-edible oils against pulse
beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis in stored gram. J. Interacademicia. 9(3): 448-
450.
Borikar, P.S. and Pawar, V.M. 1996. Life fecundity tables for pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis (Linnaeus) infesting mungbeen, Vigna radiata (L.)
Wilczek. J. Ent. Res. 20(1): 59-65.
Borthakur, A. 1992. Studies on host preference of Callosobruchus analis (F.)
(Bruchidae: Coleoptera) and evaluation of same safer protectants against the pest.
Ph.D. Thesis, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat-13.
Braich, J.S. and Simwat, G.S. 1984. Effect of different levels of initial infestation of
Callosobruchus maculatus and C. chinensis on their population built up and their
resultant loss to moong. Bull. Grain Tech. 22(3): 240-246.
Casewllet, G.H. 1973. The storage of cowpea. Samaru Agriculture Newsletter, Nigeria.
15: 20-73.
Chakraborty, S. and Mondal, P. 2016. Physico-chemical parameters of pulses affecting
the bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis Linn.) Infestation. Asian J. of Sci. and
Tech. 7(3): 2554-2560.
96
Chakraborty, S.; Mondal, P. and S. K. Senapati. 2015. Evaluation of relative
susceptibility of Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. on five different stored pulse
seeds. Asian J. of Plant Sci. and Res. 5(10): 9-15.
Chander, S.; Singal, S.K. and Bhanot, J.P. 2007. Role of grain protectants in integrated
pest management of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) infesting
greengram, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Research on Crops, 8 (2): 458-462.
Chavan, P.C.; Singh, Y. and Singh, S. P. 1997. Growth and development of C. chinensis
on cowpea lines. Ind. J. of Ent. 59: 303-310.
Cousin, R. 1997. Peas (Pisum sativum L.). Field Crops Research. 53 (1-3): 111-130.
Cronquist, A. 1981. Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia
Univ. Press, NY. 1262 pp.
Das, G.P. 1987. Efficacy of neem oil on the egg grub mortality of Callosobruchus
chinensis Linn. (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Trop. Grain Leg. Bull. 34: 14-15.
De Luca. 1966. Stored Grain Pests And Their Management written by B. P. Khare,
Kalyani Publishers. First Edition, 1994. 63p.
Dixit, P.G. 2015. All India Coordinated Research Project on Chickpea (ICAR,
Research). Project Coordinator’s Report, Annual Group Meet. pp.34.
FAOSTAT. 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics.
http://faostat.fao.org/.
Gajzágó, I.S. 2004. Nutritional Aspects of Legumes (in cultivated plant, primarily as
food sources 2. Edible Bean plants). In: Encyclopedia of Life Support System
(EOLSS), developed under auspices of UNESCO, Eolss publishers, Oxford, UK,
15p.
Ghafoor, A. and Arshad, M. 2008. Seed protein profiling of Pisum sativum L.,
germplasm using sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
(sds-page) for investigation of biodiversity. Pakistan J. Bot. 40: 2315-2321.
Ghoshal, T.K. and Senapati, S.K. 2006. Assessment of different stored pulses by
Callosobruchus spp. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 14(1): 242-243.
Gosh, S.K. and Durbey, S.L. 2003. Integrated management of stored grain pests.
International book distribution company, 263.
97
Gujar, G.T. and Yadav, T.D. 1978. Feeding of C. maculatus (F.) and C. chinensis L. in
green. Indian J. of Ent. 40: 108-112.
Hosamani, G.B.; Jagginavar, Dr. S.B. and Karabhantanal, Dr. S.S. 2018. Biology of
pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis on different pulses. Journal of Entomology
and Zoology Studies. 6(4): 1898-1900.
How, R.W. and Curie, J. E. 1964. Some laboratory observations on the rate of
development, mortality and oviposition of several species Bruchidae breeding in
stored pulses. Bull. Ent. Res. 55: 437-477.
Hussain, M. and Roy, G.C. 1997. Laboratory evaluation of some mungbean strains for
susceptibility of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) Bangladesh Journal
of Entomology. 7: 21-26.
IITA. 1989. Research Brief, 9: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadam,
Nigeria.
Islam, M.S.; Akhter, F; Laz, R. and Parween, S. 2007. oviposition preference of
Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) to common pulses and potentiality of triflumuron
as their protectant. J. bio-sci. 15: 83-88.
Jakhmola, S.S. and Singh, L. 1971. Relationship of seed size in green gram (Phaseolus
aureus Roxb.) with the development and reproduction of pulse beetle
(Callosobruchus chinensis Linn.). JNKVV Research J. 5(2): 104-106.
Kahare, S.N.; Kahare, N.P.; Harnkhere, J.P.; Kandalkar, V.S. and Thakur, S.K. 1993.
Explo ration of herbal products as grain protectants against Callosobruchus
chinensis (L). J. Soils and Crops. 3(1): 33-36.
Kahire, V.M.; Kachare, B.V. and Patil, C.S. 1987. Effect of vegetable oils on pulse
beetles, C. chinensis in pigeon pea. Current Research Report, Mahatma Phule
Agricultural University. 3(2): 53-58.
Kawecki, T.J. 1995. Adaptive plasticity of egg size in response to competition in the
cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Oecologia.
102: 81-85.
Khaire, V.M.; Kachare, B.V. and Mote, U.N. 1992. Efficacy of different vegetable oils
as grain protectants against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. in
increasing storability of pigeonpea. J. of Stored Products Res. 28: 153-156.
98
Khaire, V.M.; Kachare, B.V. and Mote, U.N. 1993. Effects of vegetable oils on
mortality of pulse beetles on pigeon pea seeds. Mahatama Phule Agricultural
University, India. Journal of Seed Res. 21(2): 71-81.
Khare, B.P. and Johari, R.K. 1984. Influence of phenotypic characters of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L) cultivation their susceptibility to Callosobruchus chinensis
(L). Legume Res. 7: 54-56.
Khokar, K.S. and Singh, D. 1978. Relative susceptibility of different genotypes of
pigeonpea to pulse beetle, C. chinensis (L.) Bulletin of Grain Technology. 25:
244-251.
Kirar, B.S.; Jaiswal, R.K.; Neha, S. K. and Yadav, R. 2018. Impact of front line
demonstration of field pea in bundhekhand region of Madhya Pradesh. Int. J. of
Chemical Studies. 6(4): 878-880.
Kumari, Kiran, Sinha, M.M.; Mehto, D.N. and Hammed, S.F. 1990. Effect of some
vegetable oils as protectants against pulse beetle, C. chinensis Linn. Butt. Grain
Tech. 28(1): 66-69.
Kumari, R. 2000. Indian J. Ent. 42(4): 319-320.
Lal, D. and Viola, R. D. 2012. Efficacy of application of four vegetable oils as grain
protectant against the growth and development of Callosobruchus maculatus and
on its damage, Advances in Bioresearch. 3(2): 55-59.
Lal, R.R. and Verma, P. 2007. Post-harvest management of pulses. Technical bulletin,
Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 208: 024pp.
Mandal, S. and Konar, A. 2006. A study on the biology of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
chinensis linn. Infesting green gram, Vigna radiata L. Legume Res. 29 (2): 134-
136.
McPhee, K. 2003. Dry pea production and breeding - A mini review. Food Agric.
Environ. 1: 64-69.
Messina, F. and Slade, A. 1999. Expression of a life-history trade-off in a seed beetle
depends on environmental context. Physiological Entomology. 24: 358-363.
Mishra, S.N.; Jena, B.C. and Guru, B.C. 2013. Biology of Pulse Beetle Callosobruchus
chinensis in Storage Condition in Green Gram. Int. J. of Sci. and Res. ISSN
(Online): 2319-7064: 321-323.
99
Mukherjee, P.B.; Jotwani, M.G.; Tadav, T.D. and Sircar, P. 1970. Studies on the
incidence and extent of damage due to insect-pests in stored seeds. II.
Leguminous and vegetable seeds. Indian J. of Ent. 32: 350-355.
Neog, P. and Singh, H.K. 2011. Qualitative determination in the seeds in storage due to
C. chinensis (L.). Indian J. of Ent. 73(4): 371-377.
Nwanze, K.F. and Horber, E. 1976. Seed coat of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval
development of Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. Environ. Ent. 4: 8-14.
Parsai, S.K.; Rawat, R.R. and Choudhary, R.K. 1989. Ovipositional behaviour and
preference of Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllehal.): its extent of damage in storage
seeds of different varieties of field bean. Bulletin of Grain Tech. 27(2): 103-106.
Parsai, S.K.; Shaw, S.S.; Despande, R.R.; Verma, R.S.; Badaya, A.K. and Mandloy,
K.C. 1990. Studies on fecundity longevity of C. chinensisand caused grain weight
loss and efficacy of edible oils against Callosobruchus chinensis L. on mungbean.
Indian J. Pulse Res. 3(1): 61-65.
Patel, B.; Choudhary, N. and Senapati, S. K. 2003. Studies on relative susceptibility of
different stored pulses to Callosobruchus chinensis. Ann. PL. protect. Sci. 11:
246-249.
Patel, V.K.; Chaudhuri, N. and Senapati, S.K. 2005. Biology of Pulse Beetle
(Callosobruchus chinensis Lunn.) as Influenced by Feeding of Different Grain
Pulses. Agric. Sci. Digest. 25 (4): 254-256.
Podoler, H. and Applebaum, S.W. 1968. Physiological aspects of host specificity in the
Bruchidae -V. Varietal differences in the resistance of Vicia faba L. to
Callosobruchus chinensis L. J. stored Prod. Res. 4(1): 9-11.
Prasad, K.; Verma, R.A.; Dwivedi, R. K. and Ram, S. Rao, Uma. 2011. Screening of
chickpea varieties against C. chinensis in relation to moisture contents. Ann. Pl.
Protec. Sci. 19: 480-481.
Pruthi, H.S. and Singh, M. 1950. Pests of stored grain and their control. Special
number. Indian J. Agricultural Sciences. 18(4):36-38.
Qazi, M.A. 2007. Development and monthly per cent damage of Callosobruchus
chinensis L. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 20(3, 4): 183-188.
100
Radha, R. and Susheela, 2014. Studies on the Life History and Ovi positional Preference
of Callosobruchus maculatus Reared on different Pulses. Research J. of Animal,
Veterinary and Fishery Sci. 2(6):1-5.
Rahman, S. 1971. Study on the morphology and biology of Callosobruchus chinensis
Linn. C. analis Fab. and extent of damage to pulses, M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of
Zoology, Dacca University. Cited from Int. J. of Scientific and Res. Publications.
5(5). 2015. ISSN 2250-3153.
Raina, A.K. 1970. Callosobruchus spp. infesting stored pulses in India and a
comparative study of their biology. Indian J. Ent. 32(4) : 303-310.
Raja, N.; Albert, S.; Ignacimuthu, S. and Dorn, S. 2001. Effect of plant volatile oils in
protecting stored cowpea vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpers against C. maculatus
(F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation. J. of stored Products Research. 37(2):
127-132.
Rajak, R.L. and Pandey, N.D. 1965. A life history study of the pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. Lavdev. J. Sci. Technol. 3(2): 119-123.
Rajapakse, R.; Senanayake, S. G. J. N. and Rathnasekara, D. 1998. Effect of five
botanicals on oviposition, adult emergence and mortality of Callosobruchus
maculatus F. infesting cow pea, Vigna ungiculata L. Walp. J. of Ent. Res. 22:
117-122.
Rajapakse, R.H.S. and Senanayake, S.G. 1997. Effectiveness of seven vegetable oils
against Callosobruchus chinensis L. in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Entomon.
22(3&4): 179-183.
Ramazan, M. 1994. Efficacy of edible oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
maculatus. J. of Insect Sci. 7(1): 37-39.
Reddy, D.S. 2010. Chapter 17: Botanicals. In: Appied entomology: 109pp.
Sahoo, A.K. and Chandrakar, H.K. 2013. Efficacy of edible and non-edible oils against
pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis L. in stored chickpea. Int. J. of Plant
Protection. 6(2): 299-303.
Schneider, A.V.C. 2002. Overview of the market and consumption of pulses in Europe.
The British J. of Nutrition. 88:S243-50.
101
Seek, D.; Lognay, G.; Haubruge, E.; Marliner, M. and Gasper, C. 1996. Alternative
protection of cowpea seeds against C. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)
using hermetic storage alone or in combination with Boscia senegalensis (Pers.)
Lam ex poir. Journal of stored products Research. 32(1): 39-44.
Sharma, R.; Devi, R.; Soni, A.; Sharma, U. and Yadav, S. 2016. Growth and
developmental responses of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on various pulses.
Legume Res. 39(5): 840-843.
Sharma. 1984. Review of literature on the losses caused by Callosobruchus species
(Bruchidae; Coleoptera) during storage of pulses. Bull. Grain Technology. 2(1):
62-71.
Singal, S.K. 1987. Preliminary biological studies of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
chinensis L. on corticated and decorticated faba beans, Vicia faba L. FABIS
Newsletter. Faba Bean Inf. Serv. ICARDA. 17: 33-35.
Singal, S.K. 1995. Testing some vegetable oil for protection of gram seed during storage
against Callosobruchus chinensis (L). J. insect sci. 8(2): 215-216.
Singh, G.; Prasad, C.S.; Anil Kumar, A.; Dhaka, S.S. and Ali, N. 2010. Effect of bio-
pesticides against stem fly and pod borer complex in field pea. Ann. Pl. Protec.
Sci. 33: 123-130.
Singh, K.M.; Sureja, A.K. and Sarma, A.K. 2006. Bio-efficacy of some botanicals
against Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on pea. Indian J. of
Ent. 68: 404-406.
Singh, R.; Singh, B. and Verma, R.A. 2001. Efficacy of different indigenous plant
products as grain protectants against Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn) on pea.
Indian J. of Ent. 63(2): 179-181.
Singh, R.P. and Srivastava, B.G. 1983. Alcohol extracts of neem (Aadirachta indica)
seed oil as oviposition deterrent for Dacus cucurbitae. Indian J. of Ent. 45: 497-
498.
Singh, S.; Singal, S.K. and Verma, A.N. 1990. Evaluation of some edible oils as
protectants of chickpea seeds, Cicer arierinum L. against pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) by preferential feeding method. In: Proc. 5th Intl.
102
Working Conf. Stored Prod. Protec. (Bordeaux, France, 1990) (eds. Fleurat-
Lessard, F. & Ducom, P.). 1715-1724 pp.
Singh, V.N. and Pandey, N.D. 2001. Growth and development of Callosobruchus
chinensis L. on different varieties. Indian J. of Ent. 63(2): 182-185.
Srinivasan, G. 2008. Efficacy of certain plant oils as seed protectant against pulse beetle,
Callosobruchus chinensis Linn, on pigeonpea. Pesticide Res. J. 20(1): 13-15.
Srivastava, B.K. and Bhatia, S.K. 1958. Development of Callosobruchus chinensis L. in
vegetable seeds. Madras Agric. J. 45(10): 392-395.
Swella, G.B. and Mushobozy, D.M.K. 2007. Evaluation of the Efficacy of protectants
against Cowpea Bruchids Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on cowpea seeds Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp.) Plant protect. Sci. 43: 68-72.
Takasugi, T. 1924. Studies on Bruchus chinensis L. Insect pests of stored products Pt. II.
Plant Quarantine St. Yokohoma. pp. 1-12.
Teotia, T.P.S.and Singh, V.S. 1968. The effect of host species on the oviposition,
fecundity and development of Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Bruchidae:
Coleoptera). Rev. Appi. Ent. 56(3): 171p.
Tripathi, S.: Awasthi, S. and Chandralekha. 2006. Efficacy of different grain protectants
against Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn.) on pigeon pea. Indian J. of Pulses Res.
19: 272-276.
Tripathy, M.K.; Sahoo, P.; Das, B.C. and Mohanty, S. 2001. Efficacy of botanical oils,
plant powders and extracts against Callosobruchus chinensis L. aitacking
blackgram (cv. T9). Legume Res.-An International J. 24(2): 82-86.
Varma, S. and Anandhi, P. 2010. Biology of pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis
Linn., Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and their management through botanicals on stored
mung grains in Allahabad region. Legume Res. 33 (1): 38 – 41.
Venkatesham, V. Meena, R.S. and Laichattiwar, M.A. 2015. Assessment of losses due
to pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis l. in chickpea. EM Environmental.
21(2): 759-761.
Vishwamithra, V.; Vijaylakshim, K. and Loka, R.K. 2014. Eco-Friendly Management of
Callosobruchus chinensis L. in Pigeonpea. Biolife. 2 (1): 341-346.
103
Yadav, D.S.; Panwar, K.S. and Singh, V.K. 1994. Management of pulse crops in
sequencial cropping. Indian Abst. Proc. Intercropping. Symposium on pulse
Research. 2-6 April, New Delhi, India. 27p.
Yadav, S.R. and Bhargava, M.C. 2005. Evaluation of seed protectants against the pulse
beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) infesting stored moth bean [Vigna
aconitifolia (Jacq.) Marechal]. J. of Plant Protection and Environment. 2: 12-16.
104

Biology and Eco-Friendly Management of Pulse Beetle (Callosobruchus Chinensis L.) On Field Pea (Pisum Sativum L.) in Storage, by Omarzai, S.a.-Converted-Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biology and Eco-Friendly Management of Pulse Beetle (Callosobruchus Chinensis L.) On Field Pea (Pisum Sativum L.) in Storage, by Omarzai, S.a.-Converted-Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIOLOGY AND ECO-FRIENDLY MANAGEMENT OF PULSE

BEETLE (Callosobruchus chinensis L.)ON FIELD PEA (Pisum sativum

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

Regd. No. AP/BAU/5122/2017

My Lovely Family Members

“Whose perpetual affection and blessings

Callosobruchus chinensis L. is a major stored grains pest of pulses in India that

CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE No.

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 24 – 28

Adult mortality on freshly treated seeds after 240 hours of

Graphical view in differences of fecundity by pulse beetle on two

1 Healthy seeds of HUDP 15 variety 28

2 Healthy seeds of DDR 23 variety 28

3 Stock culture sample of pulse beetle 28

4 500 ml plastic containers/jars were chosen for the experiment 28

5 Edible and non-edible oils sample 28

6 Eggs of Pulse beetle on HUDP 15 variety seed 32

7 Larvae of pulse beetle 39

8 Adult male and female of pulse beetle 39

9 HUDP 15 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetles 47

10 DDR 23 variety seeds/grains damaged by pulse beetle 47

Critical difference C.D.

Serial No.Sl. No.

Standard error of means SEm (±)

Coefficient variation C.V.

Standard deviation S.D.

Pulses constitute an important ingredient of vegetarian diet in a country like India

Scientific name: Pisum sativum L.

Common name: Filed pea, Garden pea

Casewellet (1973) observed 50 to 60 per cent of insect damage on pulse grains

A. Biological studies of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions

3. Larval + pupal duration (days)

4. Adult longevity (days)

5. Extent of damage in terms of

c. Weight of frass (g).

B. Management trails of pulse beetle on field pea in storage conditions by

2. Number of adults emerged after 45 days of treatment.

3. Extent of damage in terms of

a. Loss in weight (g) of the pea grains after 45 days of treatment.

b. Per cent seed damage on counting basis after 45 days of treatment.

c. Weight of frass (g).

2.1 Biology of pulse beetle

2.1.1 Incubation period and eggs lying of pulse beetle

Chakraborty et al. (2015) observed in first generation of bruchids, that

Rajak and Pandey (1965) investigated the biology of Callosobruchus chinensis

2.1.2 Eggs hatching

Raina (1970) worked on biology of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in the

2.1.3 Larval + Pupal period of pulse beetle

2.1.4 Mean developmental period of pulse beetle

2.1.5 Life cycle and Adult longevity of pulse beetle:

2.1.6 Extent of damages by pulse beetle to pulses

The ovipositional and developmental period have been guided by smoothness of

The differential rate of damage infested by C. chinensis in different pulses was

C. chinensis is a major economically important pest of all pulses and causes 40 to

2.2 Management of pulse beetle

Usage of chemical insecticides could not be recommended against pulse beetles

2.2.2 Effect of oils on adult longevity

Sahoo and Chandrakar (2013) worked on management of pulse beetle and

De Luca (1966) revealed that Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) develop in mature

2.2.3 Effect of oils on adult mortality of pulse beetle